ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

The Secretary of State was asked-

Food Labelling

Michael Fabricant: When he last met representatives of the food retail industry to discuss country of origin food labelling; and if he will make a statement.

Mark Harper: When he last met representatives of the food retail industry to discuss country of origin food labelling; and if he will make a statement.

David Evennett: When he last met representatives of the food retail industry to discuss country of origin food labelling; and if he will make a statement.

Philip Hollobone: When he last met representatives of the food retail industry to discuss country of origin food labelling; and if he will make a statement.

Jim Fitzpatrick: I met retailers, processors, producers and representatives of the food service industry on Monday, when I chaired the pigmeat supply chain taskforce, which agreed a voluntary code of practice on labelling for pork and pork products. That code will ensure that consumers have clear and unambiguous origin information when buying pork products.

Michael Fabricant: That is good news, partly. Has the Minister also met the Consumers Association? He will know that it recently conducted a survey showing that 80 per cent. of people want to know the origin of meat and poultry and 77 per cent. that of fruit. It is incredible and surprising to me that that is not mandatory on labelling. Will he push for that in the European Council?

Jim Fitzpatrick: I am sorry that I have not met the Consumers Association, but I am aware of its survey and the one conducted by the Food Standards Agency, which came out with somewhat different conclusions. Country of origin is an important aspect for consumers, as are price and food safety. All those matters should be addressed in labelling to ensure that the consumer can make an informed choice.

Mark Harper: I am pleased to hear about the progress that has been made so far. We in Gloucestershire have excellent food and drink producers, and it is important for consumers to know where their food comes from. Is the FSA, whose survey the Minister referred to, absolutely at one with him on the importance of food labelling, and will the Government take forward that view in the negotiations with European partners?

Jim Fitzpatrick: We are in negotiations in Europe about the food information regulations, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman is aware. Those discussions have been taking place for some months and will continue this year, with a view to producing regulations next year for implementation, I believe, in 2013. The Government are very much involved in trying to ensure that we have accurate country of origin labelling on products that the British consumer is interested in buying.

David Evennett: I am pleased with the Minister's response to my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant). However, several Government Departments and agencies have registered a fall in the proportion of British food that they buy. The latest figures that I can find are for 2007-08, when the Department for Children, Schools and Families, for instance, imported an awful lot of lamb and bacon and did not purchase many British apples. Can the Minister say why the latest figures have been delayed? Is he trying to bury bad news?

Jim Fitzpatrick: Maybe it is only me, but sometimes answering these questions makes me feel that I am playing Jim Hacker in the episode of "Yes Minister" in which he defends the British sausage. He was, of course, attempting to save his own bacon at the time.
	I assure the hon. Gentleman that the latest figures will be published shortly. Last year's figures showed a 2 per cent. increase in public sector procurement of British food products, and I hope that we will see the same this year.

Philip Hollobone: Britain's best breakfast cereal, Weetabix, is made in the Kettering constituency, and the wheat for it comes from farms within a 50-mile radius. Why cannot Weetabix proclaim on every box that British breakfast cereals for British breakfasts are the best in the world?

Jim Fitzpatrick: I must confess that I was not aware that Weetabix is produced in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. However, that does explain why he has three Weetabix for his breakfast every morning in the Members' Tea Room-I have seen the latest advert for Weetabix in which the jockey beats all the horses. I am sure that Weetabix will be listening to the hon. Gentleman. It is for producers to determine what they include in the way of labelling, but we are trying to encourage accurate country of origin labelling at the same time.

Jane Kennedy: Will my hon. Friend give my greetings to the taskforce, and will he come shopping with me when I visit my local Sainsbury's, Aldi, Tesco and Co-op?  [ Interruption. ] If there were a Waitrose I would shop there, too. All those supermarkets now have on their shelves products across the whole range that have their origin on the label, in some cases including the county of origin. No discerning shopper these days can seriously claim that there is not a choice. The voluntary approach is the way to go, and it is working. Will he encourage the supermarkets even further down that route?

Jim Fitzpatrick: I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend for the date that she has offered me. I am sure that my wife will read  Hansard with interest to confirm that it is a business appointment.
	I commend my right hon. Friend because, as my predecessor, she started discussions on country of origin labelling with the retailers and officials in the Department as far back as January 2009. I congratulate her on that. Her activities pioneered the success that we have seen and that will come in future, and I will be happy to engage with her in terms of shopping.

Rob Marris: One difficulty shoppers have is avoiding illegally produced goods from Israeli colonies, often called settlements, in the west bank. What are the Government doing to ensure that that illegally produced and exported food either does not enter the United Kingdom or, if it does, is properly labelled so that consumers like me can avoid it?

Jim Fitzpatrick: If my hon. Friend has not seen it-he may well have seen it-I can tell him that on 10 December the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs issued advice to retailers and importers who wished to respond to consumer demand for information about the origin of food produced in the occupied Palestinian territories. That means that consumers who buy food products that originate there will be able to distinguish between the produce of Palestinian farmers and that from the Israeli settlements. One of the largest retailers is already putting our advice into practice, and we hope that the rest will follow soon.

International Whaling Commission

Peter Ainsworth: What recent assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the International Whaling Commission; and if he will make a statement.

Roger Williams: What recent discussions he has had on improving the effectiveness of the International Whaling Commission.

Huw Irranca-Davies: Given the number of whales still killed, the International Whaling Commission is, in the UK's view, failing in its objective to safeguard whale stocks. The IWC will next meet in Florida in March to discuss progress on a number of issues. The UK will attend that meeting but will not agree to any proposals that would be detrimental to either the welfare or the conservation of whales.

Peter Ainsworth: Will the Minister state categorically that the UK Government's intention in the talks is not to legitimise existing activities in the southern ocean protection area, but to end whaling altogether, whatever the ambitions of the Japanese Government?

Huw Irranca-Davies: Indeed. The Government have long taken the position that tourist-based whale watching is the only sustainable form of whale exploitation. To give a brief update, we are currently involved in a series of discussions, and we will not negotiate on anything that will weaken our resolve to end commercial whaling. No such package or deal is currently on the table in the reform discussions and, frankly, it is difficult to envisage one in the foreseeable future, particularly while it is unclear whether Japan is willing to restrict scientific whaling operations.

Roger Williams: I understand that a proposal may be made in the forthcoming intersessional meeting of the International Whaling Commission in March to introduce a new form of legitimate whaling-so-called coastal whaling. Will my hon. Friend commit the UK Government to opposing any such new forms of commercial whaling?

Huw Irranca-Davies: We have consistently made our position clear, and we have done so again today, but we do not yet have any proposals in front of us. Of course, the IWC needs reform, because it is clearly failing. The small working group is an aspect of the work that has gone on in the past year. We are not represented directly on that, but our views are put through Australia, New Zealand, Germany and other like-minded countries. We will receive details of a proposed way forward in the meeting in March.

Lindsay Hoyle: This is a despicable trade by Japan, which continues to hunt whales in the name of science while the stocks of dead meat continue to grow as the appetite for whale meat declines in Japan. What on earth are they playing at? My hon. Friend must also know that bluefin tuna is in greater danger. What does he feel about that?

Huw Irranca-Davies: My hon. Friend makes an important point. We made it clear that we would support Monaco's proposal to include bluefin tuna in appendix 1 of the convention on international trade in endangered species and end the trade. We have not been able to get a European Union bloc to support that yet, but we are close. I am pleased that France has indicated in the past few days that it is moving its position towards a moratorium. We will work with European partners-and lobby the United States-to try, in the one opportunity that we have every three years, to end the trade in bluefin tuna, because it is unsustainable.

Bovine Tuberculosis

David Heathcoat-Amory: How much his Department has spent on measures to control bovine tuberculosis in each of the last three years.

Hugo Swire: How much his Department has spent on measures to control bovine tuberculosis in each of the last three years.

Hilary Benn: The total amount the Department has spent on measures to control bovine tuberculosis in each of the last three years is £69.6 million in 2006-07, £65.3 million in 2007-08 and £84.2 million in 2008-09.

David Heathcoat-Amory: Does it make sense to cull infected cattle but to leave the infection in the wildlife in the relevant areas, so that reinfection happens? Is that not bad for wildlife, bad for farmers and bad for the taxpayer?

Hilary Benn: The right hon. Gentleman will know about the badger culling trials that were carried out-originally the Krebs trials-and the report of the independent scientific group. As I recall, 11,000 badgers were culled and hon. Members are well aware of the ISG's conclusion. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that we have to find the most effective means of dealing with the terrible disease, which is having a huge impact, including on farmers in his constituency. This summer, we can look forward, subject to the Veterinary Medicines Directorate's granting the final licensing, to the start of the six badger vaccination deployment projects. Many farmers will participate in those, and that offers a way forward. I am grateful for the support for that.

Hugo Swire: With the number of cattle being slaughtered at an alarming rate annually, not least in Devon, what lessons does the Secretary of State take from New Zealand, which has seen a reduction of something like 85 per cent. of TB in cattle resulting from the culling of wildlife hosts, and which is well on the way to becoming officially TB free?

Hilary Benn: We take a very close interest in what is happening in all countries that have been dealing with that problem, but each has its own circumstances. As I indicated in my answer to the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) a moment ago, we tried badger culling, but the ISG's recommendation was that it could not meaningfully contribute to the control of the disease.
	We keep a very close eye on what is happening in other parts of the world, including the decision that the Welsh Assembly Government made. As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, we are putting a lot of money into vaccination. I hope that that will begin to offer a means of dealing with the problem in wildlife, which I am determined to tackle. As he will know, the debate has always been about the most effective way in which to deal with TB in badgers.

Charlotte Atkins: Staffordshire, Moorlands is a hot spot for bovine TB. This week, a local farmer, Mrs. Heath, told me that 93 of her 300 cows have been slaughtered. Will the Secretary of State visit Staffordshire, Moorlands to meet my local farmers to discuss the progress that is being made towards the vaccine for both badgers and cattle, how we can stop the devastating spread of that disease, and how we can look again at compensation levels, so that farmers are compensated for the full cost of their loss?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am grateful to the hon. Lady, but there were really three questions there, to which we will have one reply.

Hilary Benn: I will do my best to find an opportunity to have those meetings. If my hon. Friend were able to bring her farmers to the House, we might be able to find an earlier date, but I am always happy to meet colleagues. I am sorry to hear about the problems that her constituent is experiencing. One of the badger vaccine deployment projects is going to be in Staffordshire. On compensation, we have changed the arrangements. The fact that expenditure on compensation has gone up in the past year reflects the higher values of cattle.

Tim Farron: The Government have failed to take the tough action needed to tackle bovine TB. Instead, they have announced the setting up of a new animal health body, so that elected Ministers can pass the buck for such tough decisions to an unelected quango. Is it right that farmers have to pay £22 million a year to fund a new quango to clean up diseases that are not their fault?

Hilary Benn: First, I do not accept for a moment that the Government have failed in what they are seeking to do. Secondly, as I have told the House on many occasions, sharing the responsibility and the cost is reasonable. That is what we did in tackling bluetongue, which was a model in my experience. There was no complaint that the farmers had to share the cost, because we had shared the decision making on tackling the disease. The farming industry has long wanted the opportunity to share responsibility for how we tackle disease. Is it unreasonable, in the circumstances, that there should be some sharing of the costs? I do not think that it is.

James Paice: Does the Secretary of State really consider it to be a success that over the past 12 years, 150,000 head of cattle in the south-west alone have been slaughtered, and that the number continues to rise? Does he really believe that his current policies have any prospect whatever of controlling the disease, let alone of reducing or eradicating it? As he well knows, until we have an oral vaccine in four years' time, any work with vaccine is bound to be on a trial basis only-no one envisages that an injectable vaccine, which is involved in the trials that he was talking about, has any real significant prospect of deployment, because for that to happen one must catch all the badgers. When is he going to get a grip of this matter? He quotes the ISG regularly, but its conclusions were never peer reviewed, even if the evidence it gathered was. Will he accept that he is drawing sustenance from conclusions that were not peer reviewed?

Hilary Benn: We set up the ISG, which did its work and came to its conclusions. It has responsibility for what it recommended, and I accepted its advice-I know that that was not popular and that not everybody agreed. The issue is not whether we need to tackle the reservoir in wildlife, but what the most effective way of doing that is. With the badger vaccine deployment project, once the vaccine is licensed-I take the hon. Gentleman's point about practicality, and the purpose of the deployment project is to see how it works-there will be nothing to stop others using the vaccine, in addition to the six projects that we will be running. Understandably, farmers are saying, "You say that culling does not work, but what other means do you have to help us?" We at least now have the beginning of hope, but I agree that an oral vaccine would be much more effective, and we are working very hard, and providing extra funding, to bring that about as soon as possible.

Landfill

Norman Baker: If he will take steps to discourage East Sussex County Council from creating landraise mountains in the countryside.

Dan Norris: The Government's priority is to reduce the amount of waste we produce. Landfilling, of which landraising is a form, should always be the last resort. The Government are reducing our reliance on landfill through the landfill tax, increasing recycling and converting waste into energy. We will shortly be consulting on further restrictions on the landfilling of certain biodegradable and recyclable wastes.

Norman Baker: I welcome that statement, but in this day and age is it not unbelievable-and appalling-that my Conservative county council wants to build 60-acre wide and 80-foot high waste mountains in the lovely Sussex countryside? Will he draw the council's attention to the Government's waste hierarchy and suggest that it moves from the 15th century to the 21st?

Dan Norris: If I did not know better, I would think that a general election is imminent. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will take part in our consultation to ensure that we produce as little waste as possible that needs to go into landfill. The truth is that we need to reduce, recycle and reuse at every possible opportunity, and allowing waste to go into landfill is not a good thing. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I both went to Sussex university, so we are very familiar with the beauty of the area, and we recognise people's anger, but it is a local planning issue, plus a safety issue for the Environment Agency.

Nick Herbert: Under the Government's proposals, one in every four tonnes of household waste will still be landfilled in 10 years' time. That is the most environmentally damaging form of waste disposal. Britain lags behind greener countries such as Germany, and the National Audit Office has criticised the Government for dragging their feet on recycling infrastructure. Is it not time to show leadership, commit to zero waste and end the landfilling of rotting rubbish altogether?

Dan Norris: I cannot disagree with the hon. Gentleman, and I hope that he will take part in our consultation. It is an important consultation that seeks to achieve the objectives that he has just outlined, so I hope that he will play a full part in it.

Endangered Species

John Randall: What steps the Government plan to take to enhance protection for endangered species through the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species.

Huw Irranca-Davies: Species protected by CITES are included in one of three appendices to the convention. Changes to the appendices are agreed at conferences of parties to the convention, held every two to three years. We are currently discussing the proposals put forward for COP 15 with other EU member states to agree an EU position prior to the conference in March.

John Randall: I thank the Minister for his reply. Does he share my concern at the increase in the poaching of elephants for ivory? What will the Government do on the international scene to try to ensure that that is reversed?

Huw Irranca-Davies: I confirm that we will not support any COP 15 proposals if we have any doubt that CITES criteria cannot be met. In respect of elephants, at CITES COP 15 the UK will vote against any proposals-including those from Tanzania and Zambia-for further ivory stockpile sales. We will not agree to any further sales until and unless the results of the monitoring in which we are involved reveal positive effects from last year's one-off sale. We are waiting for the findings of an expert panel before reaching any decisions on proposals to downlist those countries' elephant populations on CITES.

Nick Herbert: At the last CITES conference, the Government failed to oppose ivory stockpile sales, failed to oppose China's inclusion as a buyer and failed to support bans on sales in the future. Poaching has risen sharply, elephant numbers in many countries are in decline, and there are links with terrorism. Yesterday's illegal trade was blood diamonds; today's is blood ivory. Why are the Government not supporting African nations that are calling for a binding 20-year moratorium on ivory sales?

Huw Irranca-Davies: That is an interesting point, because the issue at COP 12 was whether to allow a one-off sale, which would be followed by a resting period of nine years, during which no further proposals for ivory trade or export quotas would be submitted. That would give time for the impact of the one-off sale to be closely monitored and assessed. That work is ongoing. The sale took place in late 2008, and the ivory arrived in Japan and China in early 2009. It is important that we monitor the effects of that before we reach any other decision, which refers me back to my response to the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall).

Nick Herbert: The Minister is not sending a clear signal. We should be choking the ivory market, not stoking it. Where is the morality behind selling stockpiles of an illegally traded good just because it raises money? Robert Mugabe just spent the receipts on 4x4 vehicles. Would we take the same attitude to selling seized weapons or drugs for profit? Is it not time that the British Government showed some leadership and demanded that ivory stockpiles be destroyed once and for all?

Huw Irranca-Davies: Let me refer to the counter-proposals submitted by a number-not all, because it is not supported universally-of central and west African countries to extend the resting period from the existing nine years to 20 years, during which no ivory trading could take place. I want to make it clear that the UK supports-including financially-the monitoring the illegal killing of elephants programme and the elephant trade information system. The right way to do that is to monitor the effect of that one-off sale and to see what happens, but in the meantime not to allow any further trade. The hon. Gentleman is proposing a pre-emptive strike by ruling out anything regardless of the monitoring.

Common Fisheries Policy

Robert Goodwill: What his Department's objectives are for reform of the common fisheries policy; and if he will make a statement.

Huw Irranca-Davies: The UK's response to the Commission's Green Paper on the reform of the common fisheries policy sets out our objectives to achieve the prosperous and sustainable exploitation of fish stocks. The response makes it clear that there must be more regionalised decision making, genuine integration of fisheries with other marine policies, longer-term management planning, greater flexibility and certainty in the system and a mechanism to ease the transition to a sustainable and profitable future.

Robert Goodwill: Does the Minister agree that the two key elements are the devolution of day-to-day management to local and regional stakeholders and a land-all policy linked to a secondary market for fish that cannot otherwise be marketed to form a feed stock for the aquaculture industry?

Huw Irranca-Davies: We are very supportive of that. In fact, we have been playing a leadership role in promoting the idea of a regionalisation of management, which would still involve ministerial accountability and the overarching strategy. The hon. Gentleman is right about the idea of a land-all policy. We need to consider innovative approaches, such as the agreement that we signed last year to look at electronic monitoring on vessels, with the agreement of skippers, to land more and kill less. That relates especially to the abhorrent issue of discards, which skippers, as much as anyone else, abhor.

John Robertson: My hon. Friend will be aware that fishing is very important in Scotland, and I am sure that he has heard from fisheries people there on many occasions. However, does he appreciate that they have to have a say in what is happening? It is important in Scotland in particular, which has such a large fishing community, that they have a say in the strategy.

Huw Irranca-Davies: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend, and we have had a great deal of engagement already in bringing forward our proposals, which I note have a wide sign-up from Scottish fisheries and their leadership and more widely in the UK. However, we will continue that engagement, including through another marine and fisheries stakeholder forum to be held in May and a North sea regional conference on CFP reform in March, where I hope to speak. We will continue the engagement with all parts of the UK.

Richard Benyon: There is a widespread view around coastal communities that if people disagree with the Minister's Department, they get cut out of negotiations on important issues. I was contacted just today by the Thanet Fishermen's Association, which has been waiting since the beginning of last November for a reply on the transfer of unused quotas. Will the Minister give the fishing community and other organisations interested in CFP reform the firm assurance that they will be involved in negotiations on this important matter, even if they disagree with his Department's stance?

Huw Irranca-Davies: Yes, absolutely, but that is not to say that we will always agree. In fact, fishermen often accuse me of over-consulting and over-engagement, which can make it difficult for them to get to meetings and to engage with these matters. I guarantee that we will do as the hon. Gentleman asks, but that does not mean that we should walk away from the difficult decisions on moving from where we are now to achieving a long-term sustainable future. I know that, in his heart of hearts, he agrees with that.

Recycling (Local Authorities)

Adrian Sanders: What steps his Department is taking to encourage local authorities to recycle a greater range of materials.

Dan Norris: The DEFRA-funded Waste and Resources Action Programme-known as WRAP-worked with 260 local authorities on recycling, food waste collection and waste prevention projects in the past year and is awarding £3.3 million in funding to authorities to expand food waste collection. Local authority efforts have collectively boosted national recycling rates to over 37 per cent., and we are now working via WRAP to enhance collection, sorting, reprocessing and end markets for mixed plastics recycling.

Adrian Sanders: What specific support can the Government give to my own local authority, which has a recycling rate of just 27 per cent., to enable it to bring that rate up to the level of 57 per cent. that is being achieved by the next-door authority, Teignbridge?

Dan Norris: This really is a matter for local authorities. The recycling rate in the hon. Gentleman's unitary authority, Torbay, is actually higher than he suggested, but it is still about 10 per cent. behind the average for local authorities in the west country. He certainly needs to talk to the local authority and ensure that it is getting the message that it needs to get on with this. It recycles five different forms of waste, which is to be encouraged-we suggest a minimum of two, but we want local authorities to go up to five-but it is clearly not doing as well as the best, and I suggest that he takes that up with the authority, as this is a local matter.

Natascha Engel: What discussions has my hon. Friend had with the National Farmers Union on linking on-farm anaerobic digestion and composting much more closely to local government waste and recycling strategies?

Dan Norris: I have not had a meeting with the NFU directly-such discussions would happen through the Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Canning Town (Jim Fitzpatrick)-but I am aware of those concerns. Anaerobic digestion is an important issue. We want to minimise the amount of waste that is created in the first place, as well as encouraging reuse and recycling. We also want to create energy from waste, so that it can make a productive difference rather than just going into landfill.

Peter Luff: Does the Minister agree that massive incinerators, such as the one that has been proposed for Hartlebury in my constituency, should play a part in waste disposal only when the maximum possible effort has been made to recycle waste locally first, and that other technologies should be explored before turning to large-scale incineration?

Dan Norris: I met the hon. Gentleman earlier this week to discuss his concerns about the proposals for an incinerator in his constituency. He knows that I see that as the last option, with the possible exception of landfill. Local authorities certainly need to explore every other option before they turn to that one.

Eric Illsley: Is it not the case, however, that vast quantities of material collected for recycling cannot be recycled by industry, because the quality is not good enough? We are landfilling glass, which is completely recyclable, and exporting paper to China in order to meet our recycling targets, because there is not sufficient recycling capacity in this country. Will my hon. Friend meet representatives of the packaging industries to discuss these issues before our recycling targets are increased further?

Dan Norris: I am always happy to meet those who are worried about this issue. They are right to have concerns, and we will certainly continue to consult thoroughly on this. However, figures released only this morning show that recycling has gone up to 38.3 per cent., so we are well on the way to meeting our 40 per cent. target for this year. That is encouraging, but creating better quality waste makes it more valuable, and that should be an incentive for local authorities and others to work harder.

Private Drains and Sewers

Andrew Rosindell: What recent representations he has received on the planned transfer of responsibility for private drains and sewers to water companies in 2011.

Hilary Benn: I regularly receive representations from a range of interested parties, including water companies, drainage contractors and private sewer owners, about the proposed transfer of private sewers to the water companies in England and Wales in 2011.

Andrew Rosindell: Of course, 2011 is not that far away; there is only one year to go. Does the Secretary of State believe that the timetable for the transfer is achievable?

Hilary Benn: Yes, I do. We consulted on this in 2007, and the change has been widely welcomed. In essence, it will create a kind of national insurance system for householders who had no idea that they faced any liability until something went wrong and they discovered that they were connected to a private sewer and were presented with an enormous bill. Handling the matter in this way represents a very sensible step forward.

Tim Farron: Many residents in rural areas-I am thinking of the Summerland estate near Enmore in my constituency-depend on septic tanks, yet their uptake is a huge financial burden to families, many of whom are struggling to make ends meet during the recession. Will the Secretary of State take the advice of Natural England and ensure that private septic tank systems are also transferred to the responsibilities of water companies?

Hilary Benn: Obviously, by definition, private septic tanks are separate, and that is not something that we are currently proposing to do. I would be happy to look further into the matter and to respond to the hon. Gentleman. I think we have to recognise that it is the transfer of the sewerage system that we have already made clear we wish to move across that will provide the principal benefit, although I recognise the situation in which his constituents find themselves.

Anne McIntosh: We all want to see a transfer of private drains and sewers to water companies; we would prefer it to be planned. Does the Secretary of State accept that by not publishing the guidance at this stage, well before the general election, he is giving insufficient time for the water and sewerage companies to plan for this transfer?

Hilary Benn: As I have already indicated, I do not think that there is enough time for this to be effective in the way that we have set it out. We will publish the consultation in the next couple of months. There has been a great deal of discussion in preparation for this happening, as the hon. Lady knows from the Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) during our debate on the Flood and Water Management Bill. It is a good step. I think that there is a groundswell of support for it, and we should get on and make it happen.

Sea Defences (East Anglia)

Henry Bellingham: When he next expects to meet representatives of local authorities in East Anglia to discuss the funding of sea defences.

Hilary Benn: The Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) last visited East Anglia in April. During his visit, he met MPs, community groups and local authority representatives and discussed a range of issues on flood and coastal erosion risk management in the region. I am, as ever, happy to meet colleagues to discuss this very important matter.

Henry Bellingham: I thank the Secretary of State for that answer, but is he aware of the anger and dismay expressed by many communities along the north Norfolk coast which are very concerned that the north Norfolk shoreline management plan envisages the use of managed retreat rather than improving existing sea defences? Will he confirm that managed retreat will play no part in his Department's future sea defence policy?

Hilary Benn: I cannot confirm that because, depending on what happens to sea level rise, it would be a very unwise Secretary of State to stand at this Dispatch Box and say, "No, not under any circumstances." However, I am aware of the concerns expressed by a number of the hon. Gentleman's constituents about the north Norfolk plan, particularly the proposal for realignment where, I think, the River Burn comes out of the estuary by Scolt Head, but we will review these proposals and I understand that revised options will be put to a meeting of elected members at a forum on Monday.

River Pollution (House Building)

Maria Miller: What recent discussions he has had with the Environment Agency on the effect on river pollution of the level of house building.

Jim Fitzpatrick: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the Minister for marine and natural environment, my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies), held discussions with the Environment Agency in November 2009 regarding the approval of the river basin management plans developed under the water framework directive, which were published on 22 December 2009. Those discussions covered the implications of housing growth and other pressures on meeting our water quality objectives, as well as the Environment Agency's plans to improve water quality during the first river basin planning cycle, which runs from 2009 to 2015.

Maria Miller: I thank the Minister for his reply. The Environment Agency, the Hampshire and Isle of Wight wildlife trust and a new residents group, "Save our Loddon Valley Environment" are gravely concerned that the River Loddon in Basingstoke is polluted with phosphate levels six times the legal standard. Will the Minister confirm that his Department will endorse new house building only if it does not involve perpetuating river pollution of this scale?

Jim Fitzpatrick: The hon. Lady raises a very important point. It is quite straightforward for us that the Departments for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and for Communities and Local Government, the Environment Agency and Ofwat work together to ensure that environmental limits in regional spatial strategies and predicted housing growth data are aligned with water resource management plans and river basin management plans. The water framework directive has raised the bar in terms of what we need to achieve. DEFRA and the DCLG are working together with the Environment Agency to produce water and planning guidance. They are aware of the phosphate issue that the hon. Lady correctly raises, and I know that it is very much under review.

Water Abstraction Licensing

Robert Key: When he plans to remove Crown immunity from arrangements for control of water abstraction licensing.

Hilary Benn: We consulted last summer on the removal of certain exemptions from abstraction licence control, including the one that currently applies to the Crown. When we remove those exemptions, Crown bodies will become subject to the same licensing regime as other abstractors. We are now considering the response to the consultation.

Robert Key: The River Avon, which flows through my constituency, is a special area of conservation and has one of the highest water qualities among UK rivers, but the management of the Avon basin is being made much more difficult by the fact that the Ministry of Defence is subject to Crown immunity. It is impossible to plan sensibly and sustainably for water abstraction, low-flow problems and so on unless the MOD participates in joined-up government by simply opening up and saying, "Yes, we take this much out and put that much in."

Hilary Benn: The hon. Gentleman makes a very fair point. That is why the consultation proposed that Crown immunity be removed. I know that he is particularly concerned about water abstraction in Tidworth, and the proposals for new MOD housing and other development. We intend to take action that will give him what he seeks when we have finished reflecting on the responses to the consultation.

Sustainable Fisheries

Andrew Pelling: If he will assess the merits of the effort-based approach to fish stock conservation in operation in the Faroe Islands.

Huw Irranca-Davies: The Government will draw on the experience of many fisheries management systems throughout the world, including the one that operates in the Faroes, when considering the nature of necessary improvements to the management of fish stocks under the reform of the common fisheries policy. We need to focus on the long-term sustainability of EU fish stocks.

Andrew Pelling: Thank you for managing the business so effectively, Mr. Speaker, to get to Question 18.
	I am grateful for the Minister's constructive reply. In an earlier answer, he decried the discard. The common fisheries policy is hardly a green policy. Does he think it possible for the Government to draw on the lessons of the Faroe Islands to bring about a real change in it?

Huw Irranca-Davies: Yes, indeed. The Faroes are not the only example in the world of the use of effort management. It can be used in different ways, and it has some benefits. From our point of view, however, it involves some difficult issues, including the question of how we can move from our present arrangements to an effort-management regime. We need to think about the conversion of effort management into fishing days in the context of our current quota, and about the ability of the system to respond rapidly to what is happening to species, particularly in mixed fisheries.
	We are already taking action. We do not need to wait for CFP reform in order to tackle discards. I believe that some of the on-board electronic monitoring systems that we are hoping to introduce later in the year will help to signpost the way forward.

Anaerobic Digestion

Alistair Burt: How many anaerobic digestion facilities have been opened in each of the last three years.

Dan Norris: There is no centrally held record of anaerobic digestion plants. As for facilities where a permit is required under European Union waste legislation, the Environment Agency has confirmed that to date there are 11 permitted anaerobic digestion facilities, two permit applications in process for facilities, and 51 proposed anaerobic digestion sites in the permit pre-application stage.

Alistair Burt: I am delighted to say that one of the anaerobic digestion facilities, Biogen in Milton Ernest, is in my constituency. I believe that Ministers have visited it. I pay tribute to Andrew Needham and his colleagues for the work that they have done. However, does the Minister share the disappointment expressed by the National Farmers Union on Monday that an opportunity to encourage more on-farm biogas facilities was missed as a result of the failure to adopt an appropriate feed-in tariff to enable their energy to be used?

Dan Norris: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind comments. We rate anaerobic digestion highly, which is why we invest such a huge sum in it. We have invested £10 million in the anaerobic digestion demonstration programme, and have also convened an anaerobic digestion task group to make recommendations. We are considering those recommendations as we develop the anaerobic digestion implementation plan, which we aim to publish shortly.
	I hope that the hon. Gentleman recognises our commitment to anaerobic digestion. As for tariffs, I think that they provide a good incentive. We pay careful attention to the way in which they work in practice, and we will review their operation, but we feel that we have pitched the measures we have taken at the right place and the right time.

Dangerous Dogs

Martin Linton: What steps he plans to take in response to Professor Sir Patrick Bateson's report on legislation on dangerous dogs.

Jim Fitzpatrick: The Government take the issue of dangerous dogs very seriously. We welcome Professor Bateson's report, which deals mainly with dog breeding and the way in which dogs are bought and sold. We will be taking views from key organisations before deciding on the Government's response to the issues raised.
	I am delighted to tell the House that my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Martin Linton) and I had an opportunity to engage in a preliminary discussion on these important matters yesterday, when we paid a very informative visit to the excellent Battersea Dogs and Cats Home.

Martin Linton: My hon. Friend saw during his visit to Battersea that almost half of all the dogs that are admitted are Staffies or Bull-breed crosses. Most have to be put down even though they are of sound temperament, because back-street breeders are selling puppies in pubs-often to complete strangers-for £250. Does he accept that the dog control laws are no longer fit for purpose, and will he institute a review looking not only at the Bateson report, but at compulsory microchipping, a minimum age for dog ownership and some form of registration for breeders?

Jim Fitzpatrick: I cannot agree to the call for a review, because I understand that that has formal implications in respect of the procedures of the House, but I can assure my hon. Friend that the Bateson report will inform Government policy on this important issue. Recent tragic attacks have demonstrated that these very dangerous dogs still present a danger in ordinary people's homes, so we do need to look at the issue, and I agree with my hon. Friend that the Bateson report gives us an opportunity to do so.

Endangered Species

Simon Burns: What the Government's position is on the proposals about elephants submitted for the 15th meeting of the conference of the parties to the convention on international trade in endangered species.

Hilary Benn: At the 15th conference of parties to CITES, the UK will vote against proposals from Tanzania and Zambia to sell their ivory stocks, and we are urging other countries to do the same. We are awaiting the findings of a CITES panel of experts before taking a view on the proposals by Zambia and Tanzania to down-list their elephant populations.

Simon Burns: I thank the Secretary of State for that answer; his response will be widely welcomed on both sides of the House. Will he give us an assessment of the damage to the elephants if those applications are granted?

Hilary Benn: As the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies), said a few moments ago, there was the decision on the one-off sale, but we have always been very clear that we have to see what the consequences are, and if the point about damaging consequences that the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert), made is true, we will not support that again. We are already in favour of a nine-year ban. It is important to look at the evidence, and that is why we are so strongly opposed to what Zambia and Tanzania currently propose; it does not give sufficient time for the answer to the question to be found. That is why we have taken this decision, and I hope very much that other participants at the CITES meeting will follow the lead the United Kingdom and other countries have taken.

Topical Questions

Desmond Swayne: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

Hilary Benn: As this is the first Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Question Time since David Taylor's very untimely death, may I just say how much we all miss him? He was a very regular attender at this occasion and a passionate supporter of the environment, and he was a very fine Member of Parliament and human being.
	DEFRA's job is to help us all live within our environmental means. I am pleased to be able to tell the House that the new grocery supply chain code of practice, which will help suppliers receive fair terms and conditions from supermarkets, comes into force today. The Government have also accepted the Competition Commission recommendation that an independent body be introduced to enforce the code. This body will help to strike the right balance between farmers and food producers getting a fair deal and supermarkets enabling consumers to get the high-quality British food that they want at an affordable price. We will publish a consultation on how to implement this tomorrow.

Desmond Swayne: I thank the Secretary of State for his fitting tribute to David Taylor.
	Countless generations of schoolboys and girls will know about the erosion of the cliffs at Barton-on-Sea from their O-level and GCSE geography lessons, but is the Secretary of State aware of the anxiety and alarm that the current consultation on managing the erosion is causing, and will he favour me with a meeting, including also his colleague the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies), to discuss what is achievable and affordable with the stakeholders?

Hilary Benn: I would be very happy to meet the hon. Gentleman. I think he and I already have a date in the diary to talk about weed control, which he raised at our last Question Time, so perhaps we can deal with the two issues at the same meeting.

John Robertson: Following yesterday's publication of a survey of the country's nature-rich small pools which found that eight out of 10 of them were in a terrible state, what does the Department propose to do to tackle this problem, which is of great interest not only to the wildlife itself, but to people who are interested in wildlife?

Huw Irranca-Davies: It is a very good question, and we have confidence in the report's findings, which show some improvements within rivers and other waterways; however, the deterioration of ponds is specified. Pond Conservation acknowledges in its press release on the report that the news is not all bad. In fact, ponds close to rivers and other wetlands were higher quality, suggesting that there is something of a "protective network" effect when different types of freshwater habitats are close together. However, we, Natural England and other partners will work together to make sure that we can deal with this degradation, and Natural England is contributing £6 million to help create new landscape-scale wetlands.

Michael Jack: May I associate myself with the Secretary of State's comments about the late David Taylor? He was an exceptional member of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee.May I also put it to the Secretary of State that in 2015, Britain may face a new waste mountain of FM radios? If the proposal goes through to turn off the FM signal and move solely to digital, very large numbers of perfectly serviceable radios with many years of life left will simply have to be thrown away. In the context of the Digital Economy Bill and work on this area, what work will be undertaken to evaluate the sustainability and waste implications of this proposal?

Hilary Benn: The right hon. Gentleman raises an extremely good point, and I will look into this issue and come back to him. In the meantime, I hope the House will have noted that from the first of this month, we have had a system in place for recycling the very large number of batteries used-some of which go into the FM radios he referred to-in order to make it easy for consumers going back to the shops where they bought them to pop them in the bin and ensure that they are recycled.

David Drew: May I associate myself with the remarks about my good friend David Taylor?
	Will the Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies), in looking at how we can make our approach to fishing more sustainable and alter the common fisheries policy, examine how we can improve procurement from public bodies, using only fish from sustainable stocks?

Huw Irranca-Davies: That is an extremely important point, and there is now widespread recognition of the tick-box scheme-the Marine Stewardship Council scheme, and so on-which supermarkets are increasingly using. I notice-this sounds like product placement-that Marks & Spencer is making a big deal of this at the moment, but the Co-op, Sainsbury's and others are pushing very hard. DEFRA has a complete policy across the Department, and we are working across Government. We need to drive this down to local government as well, and to other agencies. It is important that we eat fish that comes from sustainable sources.

John Hemming: On the Department's priorities of sustainable consumption and sustainable development, what discussions have there been between it and the Department for Transport about bus regulation and whether regulation outside London needs to be modified to provide more sustainable systems of resource consumption?

Jim Fitzpatrick: The hon. Gentleman will know that the Local Transport Bill dealt with bus deregulation and the position in London vis-à-vis the rest of the country. We are discussing with the Department for Transport a number of air quality issues affecting transport, and those discussions will continue.

Clive Efford: Has my hon. Friend had a chance to see the Environmental Investigation Agency report, published on Monday, into the use of hydroflurocarbons in supermarkets, which demonstrates that their use is not being cut as much as we would like? They are 4,000 times more potent in terms of global warming than carbon dioxide-the equivalent in emissions of 5.6 billion plastic bags. May I urge my hon. Friend to legislate to create a level playing field, in order to reduce the use of these gases in supermarket refrigeration?

Jim Fitzpatrick: My hon. Friend is well known for leading on this issue and pushing the Government as hard as possible to achieve action. I have already had one meeting with him, and I am aware of the report, which we are studying. He knows that the matter was discussed at Copenhagen, and I believe there is an early-day motion down in his name that is gathering many signatures. This is an important issue and we will need to make progress on it in due course.

Edward Timpson: Can the Minister explain to John Porter, a dairy farmer in my constituency, why, like many farmers across England, he has still not received any 2009 payments under the single payment scheme, at a time when it has been revealed that the Rural Payment Agency's chief executive received an £11,000 bonus in the last financial year?

Jim Fitzpatrick: We have discussed the Rural Payments Agency a number of times in recent months. Its performance over recent years has improved year on year. It was able to meet its targets for this year six weeks ahead of schedule. I understand that it has concluded payments to 88 per cent. of farmers, which is more than last year. More money is also being paid out than last year. An improvement has been made, but some farmers have still not yet received their payments. I would ask the hon. Gentleman to write to me about any particular problem that he identifies, because I would be very happy to get the matter examined as soon as possible.

Jane Kennedy: David Taylor's absence this morning is indeed marked.
	Does the Secretary of State agree that the quality of the farmed environment is as important to those of us who live in cities as it is to those who are fortunate enough to live and work in the countryside? Will he give us a progress report on the campaign for the farmed environment?

Hilary Benn: Very readily. We published very recently the information about the baseline survey, and we found that 85 per cent. of farmers were aware of the campaign. That shows that it has had a huge impact in a short space of time. Fifty one per cent. of farmers had some cultivable land out of production-that involved about 157,000 hectares-and a total of 174,000 hectares were managed under some form of voluntary environmental measure. That is really important, because it shows the huge amount of work that farmers are doing, and the purpose of the campaign is to encourage more farmers to do the same.

Bob Russell: The Department's title contains the word "Food", so what involvement, if any, does it have in promoting allotments? If, like me, the Secretary of State thinks that they have an important part to play in the life of the country, will he lead an interdepartmental conference to put allotments high up on the agenda for growing food in this country?

Hilary Benn: I could not agree more with the hon. Gentleman. Obviously, the Department for Communities and Local Government has the lead responsibility on this matter, but all of us who care about food have an interest in getting more people to grow their own food. The demand for allotments is enormous. He will have seen in the food strategy published at the beginning of last month that one of the things we are working on is the production of the "meanwhile" leases, so that additional land that is not being used but could be used for growing food can, in the short term, pass to those who want to grow it. That would represent a big step forward.

Lindsay Hoyle: Labelling is obviously important, because it is about choice and about people knowing what they are buying. What more can we do to support the Red Tractor logo, because it is about the best of British produce? What are the Government going to do to support that?

Jim Fitzpatrick: I fairly recently had a meeting with the Red Tractor officers. My hon. Friend correctly says that the logo is a very clear indication for consumers that the product that they are buying is of quality. The officers are very much looking to raise the profile of the Red Tractor logo, because the greater the awareness among consumers of what it stands for, the greater the likelihood of their buying products with that signal on them.

Tony Baldry: Why is the Department making energy-saving water heat exchange projects unviable by charging comparatively large amounts of money for licences for the extraction and discharge of water, given that there is no change in the volume or quality of the water and nothing is added or subtracted except heat?

Hilary Benn: We are not trying to make life difficult. If the extraction for heat exchangers is less than 20 cubic metres, no permit is required and, thus, there is no charge. I am advised that to apply there is a one-off payment of £135. The issue is simply about having confidence that what is taken out of the aquifer or river goes back in a form that does not affect the quality. I have looked into this matter and found that the Environment Agency is reviewing the arrangements, because we are keen to encourage the development of this kind of scheme. I know that a particular constituency case has given rise to this question, and the Environment Agency will do its best to respond in relation to that application.

Natascha Engel: Last week, I had one of my regular meetings with local farmers in North-East Derbyshire. One of the issues that comes up again and again is the cost of complying with legislation on nitrate vulnerable zones. Farmers in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are compensated with grant packages. What more can Ministers do to ensure that English farmers are also compensated for the cost of complying with this legislation?

Huw Irranca-Davies: My hon. Friend raises an important point. I understand that she has recently written to us about that, and I shall answer her in some detail when I respond. However, I think that she will recognise that NVZs are an important tool in our armoury to tackle environmental degradation, not least in respect of the earlier question on the state of our ponds. It is an important issue and perhaps I can offer to meet her to discuss this in further detail, so that she can take some positive messages back to her farmers.

David Evennett: Will the Secretary of State congratulate my borough, Bexley, which has consistently been among the top councils in greater London for recycling? What further measures does he plan to take to assist councils in endeavouring to improve recycling even further?

Hilary Benn: I am happy to welcome progress in every local authority in improving recycling rates, and we just heard about the rising figures overall. The landfill levy is a very effective policy for encouraging recycling. We will, indeed, respond to the consultation on landfill bands, and I welcome the hon. Gentleman's support for what we have said for quite some time that we will do. That will provide an important further incentive by saying that there are certain products that it simply does not make sense to dump in landfill holes in the ground and that we should find other ways of dealing with them.

Rob Marris: Wolverhampton was one of the first Fairtrade cities in the country, assisted by the Midcounties Co-operative and an excellent local group that works hard. We have Fairtrade fortnight coming up this month. Will the Government tell me what more they are doing to promote Fairtrade?

Hilary Benn: We have given quite a lot of support over the years to the Fairtrade Foundation. It is a really good example of a good idea that has taken off. It shows that consumers, when they buy food, want to ensure that the farmer at the other end of the transaction-even if they do not know them-gets a decent price for the good food that they produce.  [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. There is quite a lot of chattering going on, but I am sure that the House wants to hear Sir Nicholas Winterton.

Nicholas Winterton: Mr. Speaker, my Macclesfield constituency is renowned for its excellent dairy farms, but the dairy farmers are deeply worried about the continuing spread of bovine TB. Do the Secretary of State and the Government take seriously the view of the British Veterinary Association, which has warmly welcomed the decision taken by the Welsh Assembly Government to have a pilot cull and stricter measures? This is important. Will he give a definitive response?

Hilary Benn: On culling, as the hon. Gentleman will have heard earlier, I gave the Government's response in the light of the trials that were conducted under the Krebs programme. The Independent Scientific Group's view was that it could not effectively contribute to the control of bovine TB. We will, of course, watch very carefully what happens elsewhere. I should just say one other thing. In the wake of my decision, we established the TB eradication group, which involved the industry coming together to recommend a range of measures, including tightening some of the controls. The group put its recommendations to me towards the end of last year and I have accepted every single one of them, because I am determined to work in partnership with the industry to try to beat this terrible disease.

Alan Beith: Does the Minister realise that one of the sources of delay in single farm payments, certainly in my constituency, is that a large number of claims are held up at the Northallerton office while consideration is given to redesignating small pockets of land on each holding? After a very tough winter for farmers, can he get these payments speeded up?

Jim Fitzpatrick: I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that we are doing everything we can to assist the Rural Payments Agency in expediting all payments. As I said a moment ago, 88 per cent. of farmers have been paid and 84 per cent. of payments have been made. The agency is ahead of schedule-it is way ahead of even last year. I know that that does not satisfy those farmers who are still waiting, but I can give him every assurance that we are making our best endeavours to assist them. I know that the agency is working very hard and ought to be commended for its improved performance year on year on year since the difficulties in the mid-2000s.

David Heath: As the Minister will know, in Somerset we have a lot of open-air festivals in the summer, particularly the Glastonbury festival. One thing that was very popular last year was setting off Chinese lanterns, which are absolutely beautiful when they go up into the night sky, but when they come down in farmland, the wires that are used to construct them get chopped up and added to hay and silage. They can cause terrible problems for livestock. Is there anything that the Minister can do to persuade the manufacturers or those who license imports to ensure that the construction is biodegradable and safe for livestock?

Jim Fitzpatrick: That is a very good question. I know that this matter has recently received publicity, and it is of genuine concern. Obviously, we do not have any power to prevent people from buying those things, but we hope that common sense will prevail, both in terms of consumers purchasing them and in respect of manufacturers. I understand that, as the hon. Gentleman has said, they can be bought without wire in them and that they can be biodegradable. We still want people to enjoy themselves, but in a sensible way that does not harm cattle or health.

Mr. Speaker: Last, but not least, Mr. Andrew Pelling.

Andrew Pelling: Conservative and Liberal councils are delaying taking a decision on an incinerator in south-west London until after local elections. Bearing in mind that toxins and toxic materials will be issued into the atmosphere, do the Government feel that it is appropriate for such incinerators to be placed in urban areas such as south-west London?

Hilary Benn: It is, as the hon. Gentleman will know, for local authorities to decide how to deal with their waste. As was indicated earlier, there is a hierarchy. Clearly, efforts to reuse and recycle should come first, but one reason why we continue to send a lot of waste to landfill is because, in comparison with some other European countries, we produce less energy from waste here. Standards have improved enormously from past times, but it is for individual local authorities to take decisions in light of local circumstances.

Parliamentary Scrutiny of EU Business

Michael Connarty: (Urgent Question) To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the Government's apparent intention to breach the undertaking to Parliament about the time scale and process for opt-in decisions in relation to the European Union (Amendment) Act 2008.

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: As the House will be aware, on 30 November 2009, the European Union signed an interim agreement with the United States to permit the sharing of SWIFT data for the US terrorist finance tracking programme. As the European Scrutiny Committee noted in its response to the Government's explanatory memorandum on the subject, we believe that the programme is a valuable counter-terrorist tool. I have today written to the European Scrutiny Committee setting out that it has come to our attention that the agreement will be subject to an expedited conclusion, and that the European Council's intention is to conclude it once the European Parliament has voted on it. That will not permit Parliament the usual eight weeks to scrutinise the UK's decision to opt into the agreement. I deeply regret that, and can only stress to the House that that in no way represents a weakening of the Government's commitment- [ Interruption. ] Allow me to finish. It in no way represents a weakening of the Government's commitment to allow Parliament full scrutiny of any opt-ins in the field of justice and home affairs. I would like to explain the reasons behind the UK's decision to opt in.
	First, the commitment given by Baroness Ashton during the passage of the European Union (Amendment) Act 2008 was based on the fact that the UK would have a period of three months in which to decide to opt into any justice and home affairs agreement. However, in this case, the conclusion of the agreement is subject to an expedited timetable. The European Parliament may vote on the conclusion of the agreement on 9 February, with the Council concluding it shortly thereafter. The expedition is necessary, as this agreement is crucial for global security. An interruption in the flow of SWIFT data would weaken the terrorist finance tracking programme, which would not be desirable.
	Secondly, the agreement is only an interim agreement. It will last for 10 months, when it will, I hope, be replaced by a permanent agreement. The permanent agreement will be decided with the full participation of Parliament at every appropriate stage in the negotiation. Thirdly, the agreement was negotiated before the Lisbon treaty came into force and, as such, on the basis of unanimity rather than qualified majority voting, as is now the case with justice and home affairs dossiers. Lastly, the final text of the EU-US agreement was taken by the European Scrutiny Committee and cleared by it in advance of the agreement being signed.
	I believe that it is crucial that the UK opts into the conclusion of the interim agreement, as the national security benefits are significant. However, I assure the House that the Government have made it clear to the European Union that this is an exceptional case in which there are compelling reasons for not having the full three months available to decide to opt in, and that the UK expects the full time in future arrangements.

Michael Connarty: I thank the Minister for her reply. I think that we both agree that an important undertaking was given to Parliament on this issue. During debate on the Lisbon treaty, when I defended our case to ratify it, I was assured by Ministers, right up to the Foreign Secretary-and also in the Liaison Committee by the Prime Minister-that the undertakings that there would be proper scrutiny of opt-in decisions would be adhered to. During the passage of the European Union (Amendment) Act 2008 through the House of Lords, a statement-printed in full in appendix 1 of the House of Lords European Union Committee's second report of Session 2008-09, HL 25-was circulated to peers debating the Bill. The relevant debate can be found at columns 374 to 377 of the House of Lords  Hansard for 9 June 2008. In it, the then Leader of the House of Lords, Baroness Ashton, gave a binding assurance that Parliament would have eight weeks to look at any proposed opt-ins.
	Although the European Scrutiny Committee might find that the substance of the proposal was not contentious if it had a proper amount of time to scrutinise it, it is clearly in breach of the Government's undertaking to Parliament about the time scale and process for opt-in decisions. This is the first instance of the post-Lisbon treaty imminent opt-in decision, and the assurance given by the Government is on trial. This breach of that undertaking is therefore a very bad start to the new process.
	The original document has been with the Government since November 2001, and the explanatory memorandum was cleared by the Committee on the basis that the opt-in conclusion, whatever it might be, would come to us with proper time for discussion. It is clear that someone is treating this Parliament with disdain and contempt.
	The Minister said that the protocol regulating the opt-in "generally" permitted three months for the UK Government to be notified about a proposal, but I thought that it would always be permitted that amount of time. To say that the European Council is not required to give us three months is an abdication of the assurance that we were given. I think that Parliament is being treated with contempt, possibly by the Government. The European Council wants to sweep this issue aside, but surely the Government should say, "No. This is a cast-iron guarantee we have given to our Parliament. We will not sign up to this until Parliament has had the proper eight weeks for scrutiny."
	It cannot be that much of a crisis, but we are worried once again that the EU will push proper process aside and that the Government will simply fall over and let it do what it wishes.

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: First, I want to make it clear to my hon. Friend, as I did in my original response to his urgent question, that we deeply regret this situation. It is in no way intended as a slight to Parliament, but we have to look at what the effect of not opting into the agreement would be. We believe that not opting in would not be in the interests of this country. There are significant reasons why we should opt in. Because the agreement was reached under unanimity, it is implied that all states will opt in. In coming into effect, this agreement bridges the gap, so to speak, between the previous unanimous procedure and the new qualified majority voting procedure.
	We have, of course, the option not to opt into the agreement and to go through another period of parliamentary scrutiny, but I believe that that would not be in our best interests. [Interruption.] We fought very hard for this agreement, so that we could get the information that we need to track terrorist financing. I do not- [ Interruption. ]

Mr. Speaker: Order. May I ask the Minister to resume her seat momentarily? I recognise that this issue has provoked real irritation, but what I say to Members who are wittering away from a sedentary position is that they will get their chance to question the Minister. I am giving them that chance, but they must contain themselves meanwhile.

Peter Bottomley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Points of order will come later, so the hon. Gentleman should resume his seat.

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: As I was saying, we believe that there are exceptional circumstances in this case. I point out to the House that Baroness Ashton's statement recognised that there could be cases or urgency, and we believe this to be one.

Mark Hoban: But Parliament was assured by Baroness Ashton, who is now the EU's High Representative, that we would have eight weeks to scrutinise opt-in decisions. Will the Minister explain: given that SWIFT was signed in November, why was it not referred to the European Scrutiny Committee until just days before the Government decided to sign up to it? Why did the Treasury ignore the assurances given by Baroness Ashton in June 2008 that Scrutiny Committees would be given eight weeks to look at these decisions? What steps did she take to ensure that there was proper parliamentary scrutiny of the agreement?
	Does the Minister accept that when assurances are given to Parliament about scrutiny they should be respected and Parliament should not be ignored? Does the Minister accept that this is a serious breach of an important undertaking by the Government and that it is vital to ensure proper scrutiny of decisions taken by the Government in this Parliament?
	Is there not a pattern here? Last week the Supreme Court quashed the Government's terrorist asset-freezing orders and in its ruling said:
	"the Court's judgement vindicates the primacy of Parliament, as opposed to the Executive".
	As a consequence, from 9.45 am today until emergency legislation is passed next week, terrorist suspects can access their assets. Let us be clear. As we speak, there is no law in place to prevent terrorist suspects from accessing frozen assets, despite the Prime Minister's repeated assurances. As a result of their incompetence, the Government have failed in their primary duty to protect their citizens.

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: I reiterate that this is in no way intended to be a precedent that parliamentary scrutiny will be overridden. I go back to the original question of my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty). We had to conclude agreement by 30 November because it was the last opportunity to adopt the agreement before the Lisbon procedures took effect, and we had unanimous agreement among member states. Otherwise, all the negotiations would have had to start all over again. That would have meant a delay of six months or more during which the programme would have been unable to function correctly. It was possible, within the time scale, for the matter to go through the appropriate procedure for Common's parliamentary scrutiny.
	I come back to the point that unanimity means that it is implicit that all member states will opt in. The question being asked today is whether we have parliamentary scrutiny over the opt-in, and of course, under ordinary circumstances, we would expect that to happen. Because we recognise that this as an exceptional case, we propose not to exercise the opt-out but to opt in.
	With regard to the asset-freezing case referred to by the hon. Member for Fareham (Mr. Hoban), my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House will be announcing at business questions that on Monday we will be taking all stages of the Terrorism Asset-freezing (Temporary Provisions) Bill.

Jeremy Browne: The Government gave a clear and unequivocal undertaking that they would allow Parliament eight weeks to scrutinise opt-in decisions of this type. The Minister now seems to be confusing, in her mind or her remarks, process and undertaking with outcomes. Will she turn her attention to the following points?
	On civil liberties, my understanding is that Germany and Austria were concerned about sharing information with third parties, and along with Greece and Hungary abstained when the EU voted on the matter last November. So it is not as non-contentious as the Minister appears to imply. Furthermore, as I understand it, genuine concerns have been expressed that when so-called pin-point requests are made for data that cannot be acceded to, all relevant data are supplied, including names, addresses and personal identification numbers. Therefore, there is all the more reason to look at this case carefully.
	Am I right in my understanding that the European Parliament was given only a limited time to undertake scrutiny on this process, and that it was signed off the day before the Lisbon treaty came into effect? Does that not further confirm, in my mind and that of every other hon. Member, that we should be given the full eight weeks to look at this matter rather than one week, which is a reneging on the undertaking given by the Government themselves?

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: I want to address some of the hon. Gentleman's concerns about data protection. The European Commission designated the French counter-terrorism judge, Mr. Jean-Louis Bruguière, to the issue, and he produced a report which confirmed the accuracy of the US Treasury Department's representations to the EU on data protection practices. He concluded that the programme has generated significant security benefits for the EU. The new agreement improves the protection afforded to EU citizens compared with that under the previous programme, which was done under a US Treasury subpoena.
	Under the proposed agreement, the decision to authorise transfer of data to the US Treasury Department will be made by a European judicial authority, which must verify the legality of the request. The agreement provides for reviews of the way that it is operating so as to assess, in particular, compliance with data protection safeguards. While there were some concerns from other member states, that is the reason why the agreement has only a 10-month life, which means that there will be a new agreement that will have full scrutiny in all parts of this House and all parts of the EU. As I say, it is important in this case that we maintain the programme; that is why we have taken the decision that we will opt into the programme in the interests of national security and of protecting against terrorist financing.

Gisela Stuart: I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for allowing this urgent question, which is very important. Can I urge the Minister not to mistake the substance for the process? The anger on these Benches is not about the agreement, but about the fact that Parliament has been reassured, time and again, particularly post-Lisbon, that we have proper processes-and what happens then? On the very first occasion post-Lisbon, we again find that Parliament is just some irritating thing that has somehow to be dealt with. The Leader of the House is also sitting on the Front Bench. This is simply not good enough-Parliament needs to be respected, and it has not been on this occasion.

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: I recognise my hon. Friend's concerns, but I would only repeat that this agreement was reached before the Lisbon treaty came into effect, so, in a sense, it straddles the two agreements. That is why this is right in this case.

William Cash: The Minister has just said that this is not intended to be a precedent, but does she accept that it is a precedent, and that it is a precedent to prove that the promises that were repeatedly made throughout the Lisbon treaty process that there would be an increase in the powers of national Parliaments have been completely jettisoned in the most ramshackle manner? Her windbaggery today, if I may say so, demonstrates the fact that there is no real respect for this Parliament and that the procedures are simply being washed to one side.

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: Given that I am noted for my rather concise and to-the-point remarks in normal cases, I rather take exception to the word "windbaggery", particularly from the hon. Gentleman. I can only repeat that this agreement was made prior to the Lisbon treaty, and it in no way undermines our commitment to full parliamentary scrutiny. This is an exceptional case and one in which I think that the right decision has been made.

David Heathcoat-Amory: Does the Minister recall that during the debates on the Lisbon treaty we were assured in terms that scrutiny rights for national Parliaments would be enhanced? Is it not therefore a disgrace that at this first test the Government have forgotten and breached their promises and are signing up to very sensitive criminal justice matters that go to the heart of parliamentary democracy without the promised parliamentary scrutiny? Does not this show not only that the public were let down by not having the promised referendum on that treaty, but that Parliament was misled during those debates and therefore voted under a misapprehension on assurances that the Government were not sincere in giving?

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: If this were the first agreement under the new Lisbon treaty and under the qualified majority voting procedures, I could have some sympathy with the right hon. Gentleman's view. However, as the agreement was made unanimously before qualified majority voting, I do not agree.

Lindsay Hoyle: The Minister has tried to put the defence quite strongly, but the truth of the matter is this-I will read from her own letter to my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty):
	"The Council takes such a view in this case and is therefore expediting adoption as soon as the European Parliament gives its assent, which could be as early as 9 February. This means that on this occasion the Government is unable to grant to Parliament the agreed period of eight weeks to scrutinise the decision".
	That tells us that this Chamber is being taken for granted. It is totally unacceptable, and it is about time that Ministers took responsibility for their actions and failures.

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: I am more than happy to take responsibility for my actions. I believe that it is in the best interests of this country that this agreement goes ahead, and that is why on this occasion I am prepared to allow the opt-in. To opt out would send totally the wrong message about this country's commitment to tackling terrorism and stopping terrorist financing going around the world.

Peter Bone: I feel very sorry for the Minister, who is being left almost in splendid isolation; the Deputy Prime Minister has come to her rescue. Does the Minister not understand that we do not want the Executive's decision on this-we want Parliament's decision? It is not the Executive's decision but Parliament's decision that is required.

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: I can only return to the points that I originally made. The European Scrutiny Committee had the opportunity to scrutinise the original agreement, and it did. The agreement was made under unanimity. We are talking about keeping a regime going. The agreement is for only 10 months. This is in order to allow full scrutiny in all parts of the European Union, including this House, to ensure that the final agreement that we end up with is one of which everyone has had the chance to be part.

Richard Younger-Ross: Does the Minister not understand that there is deep concern and fear in the country about the European process, and that this decision is feeding the siren calls from those who wish to leave the EU? If eight weeks was not possible, why did the Minister not find another process and come to the Floor of the House to say, "These are the issues", so that, as was suggested, we had scrutiny of the proposal, even if it was not in its original form?

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: I think that I have made that clear. I accept that many people in this country have concerns about the European Union. I would also suggest that many people in this country have deep concerns about terrorism and how the financing of that terrorism goes around the world. Because the actual agreement has been scrutinised under Commons procedures, I feel that in this case it is acceptable to go to the opt-in, given that it is a temporary agreement and that it was agreed before Lisbon came into force, and given that the House will have ample further opportunity to scrutinise the new agreement. It is not the first test under the Lisbon treaty.

Mark Harper: The Minister is missing the point. This is not about the substance-it is about the process. Undertakings were given for this House to make the decisions, and at the first opportunity the Government have broken their word. The Leader of House, who is sat next to the Minister, has clearly failed in her duty to look after the interests of this House and has put the Government first. Why did the Minister not refer this matter to the European Scrutiny Committee at the earliest opportunity rather than leaving it to the last possible moment?

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: This is not the first opportunity under the Lisbon treaty. I have to balance the wider interests of people in this country against the proliferation of terrorist finances. Given that the substance of the agreement had been scrutinised under this House's procedures, the only other option that I had was to opt out of this agreement, which would send totally the wrong message about whether this country- [ Interruption. ]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I say to Mr. Cash that he has asked a very full question, and I am sure that the House is grateful to him for doing so, but he really must exercise what self-restraint he is able to muster in the circumstances.

Angus MacNeil: Given the promises made and given what is happening, what is an assurance from this Government really worth?

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: I assure the House that we take our responsibilities on terrorist financing very seriously, and that I take my responsibilities to this House very seriously. This is an exceptional occasion in which, given all the points that I have made, I think that we should agree to this opt-in, and that is what I intend to do.

Business of the House

George Young: May I ask the Leader of the House to give us the business for next week?

Harriet Harman: The business for next week will be:
	Monday 8 February-Consideration of an allocation of time motion, followed by all stages of the Terrorist Asset-freezing (Temporary Provisions) Bill.
	Tuesday 9 February-Motion to approve a money resolution on the Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill, followed by consideration in Committee of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill (Day 6), followed by, if necessary, consideration of Lords Amendments.
	Wednesday 10 February-If necessary, consideration of Lords Amendments, followed by motion on section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993, followed by motion to approve a resolution relating to the House of Commons Disqualification Act, followed by motion to approve an instruction relating to the Crime and Security Bill, followed by, if necessary, consideration of Lords Amendments.
	The business for the week commencing 22 February will include:
	Monday 22 February-General debate on the report from the House of Commons Reform Committee on "Rebuilding the House".
	Tuesday 23 February-Remaining stages of the Children, Schools and Families Bill.
	Wednesday 24 February-Remaining stages of the Energy Bill.
	Thursday 25 February-A general debate on Welsh Affairs.
	Friday 26 February-Private Members' Bills.
	The provisional business for the week commencing 1 March will include:
	Monday 1 March-Opposition Day (Half-day) [4th Allotted Day]. There will be a debate on an Opposition motion, subject to be announced, followed by motion relating to the draft Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 (Continuance in Force of Sections 1 to 9) Order 2010, followed by motion relating to the draft Social Security Benefits Uprating Order 2010.
	I should also like to inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall for 11 and 18 March will be:
	Thursday 11 March-A debate on the third sector and Government working together to help communities.
	Thursday 18 March-A debate from the Health Committee entitled "Patient Safety".

George Young: The House is grateful to the right hon. and learned Lady for giving us the forthcoming business. I am sure that the House will want to return to the issue raised in the rather unsatisfactory exchanges that we have just heard. Members will have noted that in about half an hour, there was not one supportive question for the hapless Treasury Minister.
	On Monday's business dealing with terrorist assets, may I ask why the Government had no contingency plan for what has just happened? Lord Newton's Committee warned the Government about the loophole six years ago, and the Government have known about the challenges to orders on terrorist assets since April 2008. Last week the Government had a 40-clause Bill, but now they have a three-clause Bill. There is no law to prevent terrorists from going to the bank between now and Monday and claiming their money back. Why were the Government so ill prepared?
	On political reform and the business for the first Monday back after the recess, may I press the right hon. and learned Lady further on the Government's disastrous handling of the Wright Committee report? She is wasting time next Tuesday on the alternative vote, but putting at risk progress on the recommendations of an elected Select Committee of the House. Two weeks ago she said that some Wright reforms could be
	"in operation before the House rises."-[ Official Report, 21 January 2010; Vol. 504, c. 449.]
	But on Tuesday at the Liaison Committee, the Prime Minister admitted that if proposals were objected to, there might not be enough parliamentary time for them to be implemented before an election. Is the Leader of the House aware that there is a growing feeling that people simply cannot take this Government seriously on reform? No fewer than seven constitutional campaign groups are urging her to look again at the procedure for the debate. Will she give a firm commitment that the House will have proper time to get changes made to Standing Orders, as the Wright Committee wished, before the election? Given the approaching recess, will she ensure that the motions that the Government intend to take forward will be tabled by next Monday at the very latest?
	May we have a debate on the chaos of the Student Loans Company? Many hon. Members will have had complaints from their constituents about the endless delays and inefficiencies of that body, and today we learn that two months after the Government said that the problems were being fixed, more than two thirds of students with disabilities or special needs have failed to receive the crucial funds that they need for their studies. May we have a full statement from the Government to explain what they are doing to remedy and mitigate that distressing problem?
	The Leader of the House will be aware that the findings on the Government's management of the out-of-hours contracts will be laid bare today by a report to the Department of Health and by the coroner's verdict following an inquest into the tragic deaths in Cambridgeshire. Will she ensure that a Health Minister comes to the House to make a statement on the review of the out-of-hours service?
	When can we have the annual debate on international development? It was postponed last November and was meant to be rescheduled for next Wednesday, but it does not appear in the business that the Leader of the House has just read out.
	Given that the right hon. and learned Lady has so far failed to meet my requests for a debate on the crisis in Haiti, will she now guarantee that that important debate will be held as soon as possible on our return from the February recess?
	I now turn to familiar territory. When will the Chancellor present his Budget to the House? Finally on dates, this is the last time we shall have business questions until 25 February, and there is still no news of the Easter recess. [Hon. Members: "Question 42!"] Yes, it is question 42. Let me put to the right hon. and learned Lady a scenario on which I believe it might be sensible to proceed. I suggest that the Prime Minister will visit the palace on 29 March and announce the election, that the House will adjourn for the Easter recess on Maundy Thursday and not return, that Her Majesty will dissolve Parliament on 12 April, with a general election on 6 May, and that some of us will return for swearing in on 12 May. Would the right hon. and learned Lady like to confirm or deny that?

Harriet Harman: In relation to the Terrorist Asset-freezing (Temporary Provisions) Bill, which I have announced will have all its stages next Monday, subject to the approval of the House, hon. Members will be aware of the Supreme Court's decision on the vires under which the order involved was made. Clearly we have to set the law in order and ensure that we have the powers that we need to use against assets that have been built up for use in terrorist activity. We are ready to make it clear this afternoon what those provisions are. The Bill will be introduced tomorrow, and on Monday, subject to the House's approval, it will have all its stages and then go off to the Lords.
	As will be seen this afternoon, we have made it clear that the Bill's application will be retrospective. It is obviously an absolute priority to ensure that terrorists do not have assets at their disposal to use against people in this country, and we will ensure that the powers are available, and made retrospective, to deal with the issue that the Supreme Court raised, which was simply that the order was ultra vires.
	I would make two points on how we are dealing with the Wright Committee recommendations. I have said at business questions that we hope the House will agree to more than 20 provisions in the report, and we intend to table them for approval after a full day's debate on 22 February. If we can approve some, if not all, of the motions that I will table then, that will be a good start. I will bring back those that, because Members object to them, are not approved. We will lay amendable motions, and then the House will vote on them.
	As there are more than 20 areas of consideration on which we propose to move forward, it will be helpful if some of them, if not all, can be dealt with after a full day's debate. We can get the debate dealt with so that the House can be heard, and then if there are motions to which there is no objection, they can go through straightforwardly by agreement. On some issues there will undoubtedly not be agreement, and those will then have to come back to the House in motions that are amendable and can be voted on.
	The right hon. Gentleman talks as though there were unanimity in the House on all the Wright reform issues, and as though somehow, only the Government stood in the way. He is fostering that impression, but it is a misapprehension. As shadow Leader of the House, he should know that on some substantial matters that the Government are in favour of, there is division in the House. For example, we support the idea of secret ballots for the election of Chairmen of Select Committees. He will know that last week the Liaison Committee was split down the middle on that, and voted to support it by only seven to six. So I would be grateful if he did not purvey the view that he and the whole House are reformers, and the Government are standing in their way. That is not true and does not reflect all the progress that the House has been able to make in the past 13 years on initiatives introduced by previous Leaders of the House. Reform has happened, and further reform, with the House's support, will be forthcoming under the Wright Committee recommendations.
	Inspection and tight regulation of the out-of-hours GP service are obviously important. All primary care trusts should ensure that the out-of-hours service in their area is in order.
	The right hon. Gentleman asked about a day of debate on international development. One of the Wright Committee's proposals is for all Back-Bench business and general debate to be determined by a Back-Bench Committee. The Government back that. If it were agreed, the right hon. Gentleman or other hon. Members would not be asking me why we had not had a day to debate international development, because it would be down to Back Benchers to decide when to have a defence day, an international development day or a Welsh day, and to determine the subjects of topical debates. Frankly, I look forward to the day when hon. Members can ask themselves rather than me why such a decision has been made. [Hon. Members: "And in the meantime?"] In the meantime, I use my good endeavours to draw on the will of the House and ensure that we get the debates right. The answer is: as soon as possible.
	As for an election date, I shall not be announcing that as part of the business of the House.

David Heath: Seventeen years ago this week "Groundhog Day" was released-a film in which, hon. Members may remember, the major character was destined to relive the same day until he got things right. I wonder whether there is any similarity to business questions, when we ask exactly the same questions each week, and the Leader of the House has not quite got it right yet.
	I do not suppose that there is any point in repeating the question that the right hon. and learned Lady simply does not answer, about the date of the Budget. We had, quite properly, a debate on the pre-Budget report. May we now have a debate on the influential study that the Institute for Fiscal Studies issued yesterday-its so-called green Budget? It disagrees fundamentally with some of the Treasury's rosy assumptions about the UK's future. It says that long-term growth of 2.75 per cent., as forecast by the Government, is an absurd fantasy, that unemployment is likely to rise from 6 to 9 per cent. by 2015, and that the assumptions about Government revenue are entirely bogus. We should debate those assessments, which experts have made, so that we can gauge how deep a hole the country is in.
	Every week we discuss the conduct of parliamentary business, and every week we are told that the Government are committed to reforming how Parliament works. In reply to the urgent question that preceded business questions, we heard just how committed the Government are to allowing Parliament a say in matters that are properly parliamentary business. We have just heard from the Leader of the House how she intends to approach the Wright Committee's report. No one thinks that there is unanimity on the subject, but we would like the opportunity to debate and agree all, not just some, of the recommendations. She has yet to tell us even which recommendations she will allow us to discuss. Perhaps she would like to do that in the near future.
	One of the main criticisms of the House is that we scrutinise Bills so badly. Yet we continue to do it badly. As of this morning, the Committee considering the Children, Schools and Families Bill has scrutinised only 14 of the 50 clauses in that important measure, and the Leader of the House has just announced its remaining stages. Today is its last day in Committee, so the other clauses will not be properly scrutinised. When will we do the job properly? If we will not do it properly, we must give the other place a chance to do it instead. Does she accept that many of the Bills before the House will get no further than Second Reading in another place before we enter the wash-up process, and that that is not the right way to scrutinise business?
	We had some discussion of dodgy crime statistics this week. I do not approve of basing arguments on crime statistics that are not right, but let me give some genuine statistics. The retail crime survey suggests that retail crime cost the sector £1.1 billion this year-a 10 per cent. increase. That equates to 72,000 retail jobs. May we have a debate on retail crime so that we can ascertain whether there is anything that we as a Parliament can do to prevent such crime-and, ultimately, its cost to all of us as consumers?

Harriet Harman: The hon. Gentleman raised economic issues, following the report of the Institute for Fiscal Studies. No one could accuse the Chancellor of purveying rosy assumptions. He has always said that it was going to be a difficult time for the economy, and that it would begin to start recovering only at the turn of the year-as has happened. We have been encouraged by the fall in unemployment in the past two months, particularly as unemployment usually continues to rise after an economy begins to recover. In the 1990s recession under the Conservative Government, because of an absolute absence of labour market measures and help for the unemployed, unemployment carried on rising for three years after the economy had returned to growth. In the 1980s recession, unemployment continued to rise for five years after the economy had started recovering. We are encouraged by the improvement in employment, but we make no rosy assumptions.
	We are not prepared to go along with cuts in public investment or taking money out of the economy, as proposed by the official Opposition, precisely because we regard the economy as still vulnerable. We will continue to support the economy and to support people who become unemployed to get back into work, and we have a clear plan for reducing the deficit by half in four years.
	It is also worth bearing in mind that the amount, as a percentage of gross domestic product, that the Government spend on servicing the debt, which has been necessary to support the economy, is less than the amount that the Conservative Government spent annually on servicing debt in all their years of government, except two. If it comes to a question of whether the debt is affordable, I stress that we are spending less as a percentage of our national wealth on debt than the Tories spent in all but two years. I know that is not what the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) asked, but I am sure that he is interested in the answer.

David Heath: Worth sharing, anyway.

Harriet Harman: Yes. I am sure the hon. Gentleman wishes that he had asked that question.
	I hope that hon. Members will accept my good faith on the Wright Committee report, because I do not do devious. [Hon. Members: "Oh!] I am trying to assist the House. We will have a full day's debate, when all the issues in the Wright report can be discussed. We will then consider a series of proposals. If there is no objection to them, they will go through and could be implemented. If there is an objection to them, they will come back to the House for decision, but we will not need to debate them all over again, because we will have done that. We will then get on with making decisions. At that point, the decision about what amendments are tabled will be in the hands of the House. We will cover the full range of the Wright Committee report. I sought to arrange things in the way that I outlined because with 646 Members, who all have a view, we could end up with propositions that would cancel each other out. I thought that it would be good to set a clear programme for approval on the first day we debate the report, and see whether we could get some things sorted and agreed, before getting into a position whereby a plethora of proposals, and more than a plethora of amendments, would be tabled, and we could end up with less than we might have achieved had we been able to proceed on the basis of a consensus, pulled together by me as Leader of the House. I hope that we can proceed by consensus.
	The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome mentioned the Children, Schools and Families Bill Committee stage. He cannot have it both ways. Either there is rigid timetabling, which ensures that every bit of a Bill is scrutinised in Committee but leads to protests about timetabling, or there is no timetabling, the debate is front-loaded, and the Committee does not get to the end of the Bill. How that scrutiny is carried out is really in the hands of the Committee. We all want to make sure that there is good scrutiny on Second Reading, in Committee and on Report.
	As for the crime statistics, we have to look to reduce crime across all areas, including both violent crime and acquisitive crime. One encouraging thing is that the fall in crime, both violent and acquisitive, has been so marked that it has not increased during the recession. I think that this is the first time that that has happened during a recession. Usually, a recession is accompanied by an increase in acquisitive crime. On this occasion, with the roll-out of neighbourhood policing, police community support officers and all the other crime prevention measures, we have not seen crime rising; indeed, it has continued to fall.

Several hon. Members: rose -

Mr. Speaker: Order. Twenty-eight right hon. and hon. Members are seeking to catch my eye. If I am to accommodate everybody, as I would naturally wish to do, short questions and short answers will be required.

Kitty Ussher: I am deeply honoured, Mr. Speaker, to be the first of those 28. I know that my right hon. and learned Friend shares my view that it is wrong that religious organisations should be able to discriminate against, for example, gay people or women who apply for non-religious posts in those organisations. She will also know that a Government amendment on that subject was defeated recently in the other place. Will she therefore take this opportunity to clarify for hon. Members whether she will reintroduce such an amendment when the Equality Bill returns to the Commons?

Harriet Harman: I thank my hon. Friend for raising this matter. The Government's policy is clear and has not changed. Our view remains that religious organisations employing people should comply with the law that applies to all other employers, whether that is the requirement to have written contracts, pay sick pay or the minimum wage, or the requirement not to sack people unfairly or discriminate against them. However, our position has always been that for specifically religious work-as a vicar, priest, rabbi or imam-religious organisations would be exempt from non-discrimination law. A religious organisation cannot discriminate against gay people or women when it hires a bookkeeper, but it can when choosing a minister of religion.
	The amendment that we proposed in the House of Lords did not intend to change that policy position. What it sought to do was make the distinction between religious and non-religious jobs clearer. The Lords did not regard our amendment as helpful. We will therefore leave the law as it is, and not bring the amendment back to this House. The law will remain as it was: in anti-discrimination law there is an exemption for religious jobs but not for non-religious jobs.

Anne Main: May we have a statement on Thameslink? It is recorded in  Hansard that the Thameslink programme is now
	"scheduled to be completed from...2016"
	and that
	"key output 2...is scheduled to be delivered from 2016."-[ Official Report, 2 February 2010; Vol. 505, c. 48WH.]
	That is a year's slippage from the 2015 Thameslink project announced previously. Either the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Ipswich (Chris Mole) was not on top of his brief, or he made a statement in that Westminster Hall debate that the Thameslink programme was being slipped by a whole year.

Harriet Harman: Obviously, I try to keep on top of all the issues relating to all the train lines relating to all hon. Members, but I am not able to give the hon. Lady a very specific answer on this. If she had given me notice of her question, I might have been able to give her a more substantive answer, but as it is, I will ask the Minister to write to her.

Gerald Kaufman: Has my right hon. and learned Friend seen early-day motion 480, standing in my name and those of a number of other Members, with regard to the disgusting way in which Bestway Northern Ltd treats its employees?
	 [That this House expresses its extreme disapproval of Bestway Northern Limited, a business which seeks to treat its employees like serfs, which conducted a show-trial of two employees, constituents of the right hon. Member for Manche s ter Gorton, defamatorily accusing them of gross misconduct when their alleged offence was simply waiting for a decision on their immigration status by the UK Border Agency, which was entirely outside these two employees' control; strongly objects that they have now been dismissed on the grounds stated by their director, Dawood Pervez, that these employees 'are not permitted to work in the UK', which is a lie, since the right hon. Member has in his possession a letter dated 4 December 2009 from the UK Border Agency confirming that these two men 'will be allowed to continue with their employment in the United Kingdom, until a decision has been made on their outstanding appeals'; warns anyone seeking a job to steer clear of Bestway Northern Limited; and further warns possible customers and clients to have nothing to do with these duplicitous tyrants.]
	The company staged a show trial of two of my constituents and found them guilty of gross misconduct when they had done nothing but wait for a decision by the Home Office. It sacked them despite the fact that I have a letter from the Home Office saying that they have the right to work until their appeals are heard. Is that not utterly disgusting, in the year 2010? Will my right hon. and learned Friend get the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions to deal with those people?

Harriet Harman: There will be an opportunity for my right hon. Friend to raise issues of immigration law in Home Office questions next week. I know that he feels very strongly about this; he has spoken about that employer in business questions before.

Robert Key: Please may we have an urgent debate on the health protection of our citizens in this country, and the Government's policy on that? Three years ago the Government decided-very wisely and quite rightly-to rebuild the Centre for Emergency Preparedness and Response at Porton Down in my constituency. On Monday they told the 800-strong work force of distinguished international scientists, who protect this country against swine flu, ebola, green monkey disease, and emerging diseases and viruses-and who, incidentally, are involved in the response to terrorism-that instead of rebuilding the centre on site, they were going close it down and move the 800 jobs to Essex. That has caused huge distress locally, but of course it cannot be in the national interest at this particular moment, facing the threats we face, to disrupt the entire service on which we all so depend.

Harriet Harman: I can see that the hon. Gentleman feels very strongly about this matter on behalf of his constituents. If he had given me notice of his question, I could have given him a more substantive answer-and, I am sure, reassured him and his constituents. However, as it is, I will ask the Minister concerned to write to him.

Barry Sheerman: My right hon. and learned Friend will know that in three short years, the participation age for education, training and work will increase to 17 years. We have not yet had a commission, or a serious debate in the House, on how we are going to provide for those many young people who will need training in the community or in environmental projects. May we have a debate very soon? Three years is not very long to prepare for that great change in our education system.

Harriet Harman: I agree with my hon. Friend that that is a substantive and important change. In terms of the process by which the House can engage with Ministers and scrutinise their proposals, perhaps he could raise the matter at Work and Pensions questions next week.

Justine Greening: The already stretched postal services at Putney post office face massive disruption because the leaseholder now wants to redevelop the site. All that post office managers will tell me is that they are consulting their lawyers. May we have a debate to find out how much of the post office network is at risk because the Post Office is not actually in control of it?

Harriet Harman: I will ask my right hon. Friend the Minister for Business, Innovation and Skills to write to the hon. Lady.

Clive Efford: May we have a debate on child protection procedures in England and Wales? I do not know whether my right hon. and learned Friend has seen the report published today by Bournemouth university, but it says that violent deaths of young children have decreased by 40 per cent. since 1974, meaning that they have decreased consistently under all Governments. Such a debate would serve to prevent people from coming to the House with outrageous claims about "broken Britain", made on the back of the tragic deaths of young people, and it would give us an opportunity to focus on an important field of social care, celebrate some of the work that is being done, and find out where improvements can be made.

Harriet Harman: It is gratifying to see those figures coming down, but my hon. Friend and everybody in the House will agree that while even one child is at risk, we want to make sure that all the services work together to make sure that preventable abuse and death is avoided.

Richard Younger-Ross: Has the Leader of the House seen early-day motion 798, in my name, on the use of ultrasonic Mosquito devices?
	 [That this House notes the growing use of ultrasonic Mosquito de vices; agrees with the Children' s Commissioner, Sir Alan Aynsley-Green, that these are ultrasonic weapons designed to stop young people gathering, which are a powerful symbol of a deep malaise in British society and its views towards children; believes that their use in public places where children legitimately gather is wrong; and calls on the Government to urgently limit their use.]
	Has she seen the comments of the Children's Commissioner, Sir Al Aynsley-Green, who yesterday described the use of such devices as symbolic of a "deep malaise" in the UK and its attitudes towards children? Such devices are used on railway stations during the rush hour when young people are going to school or college, and outside shops where young mums, who cannot hear them, leave their children, who can hear them, in distress, so may we have, as a matter of urgency, a debate on the rights and protection of young people?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am very worried that we have already had that debate.

Harriet Harman: I think that that is an issue that would interest a number of hon. Members; perhaps it is something on which the hon. Gentleman can seek a debate in Westminster Hall.

Keith Vaz: On the subject of young people, the Leader of the House will remember coming to Leicester three years ago to open the nursery at the Peepul Centre, a £19 million project. Sadly, because of the economic situation, that millennium centre is facing financial problems. Will she arrange for a statement from the Department concerned, so that it knows what it can do to ensure that that wonderful nursery-which is called "Harriet's nursery" locally-can stay open?

Harriet Harman: That is one nursery that we certainly do not want to see close. I am sure that reassurance can be given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, working alongside my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Children, Families and Schools. It might be a good idea for me to facilitate a meeting between the Secretary of State and my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz), because I know that he is a great champion of children's services in his constituency and has done much to ensure that support services for children and parents are much better than they were some years ago.

Douglas Hogg: May I revert to the request that I made last week for a debate on Treasury interference in Ministry of Defence procurement? It is plain that the Prime Minister, when Chancellor, intervened so as to deny British forces the kit-in particular, helicopters-that they required. As a result, lives were lost. That was the evidence of Defence Secretaries and chiefs. We need to hear that evidence on the Floor of the House and call the Prime Minister to account.

Harriet Harman: As far as evidence to the Chilcot inquiry is concerned, it is given as far as possible in public, and only in private when that is in the interests of national security. The Chilcot inquiry has yet to report, but we will have a defence debate soon, perhaps next month, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman could raise those issues then.

Richard Caborn: May I continue with the clean-up agenda that seems to be prevalent this morning? Will my right hon. and learned Friend make time for a debate on the damning report on the Ashcroft affair by the Information Commissioner, Christopher Graham, which said that statements by senior politicians about Lord Ashcroft's undertaking were "evasive and obfuscatory". The impact of certain actions by that individual, especially as we are in the run-up to an election, need scrutiny and a debate in this House. I hope that she will make time for such a debate.

Harriet Harman: I thank my right hon. Friend for his question. This is now in the hands of the Information Commissioner, who has said that this information should be made public. It is in the public interest because before Lord Ashcroft was able to take his seat in the House of Lords, undertakings were given in relation to his tax affairs. The question is whether those undertakings have been met. Has he done what he promised in terms of paying tax in this country and putting his tax affairs on a proper footing? There has never been a definitive statement from him on that point, and when the Opposition have been asked they have simply given a formulaic code, which has not revealed the situation in its true light. The Information Commissioner has said that that information must be put into the open so that everybody can be sure that Lord Ashcroft has complied with the undertakings he gave in order to get into the House of Lords.

Ann Winterton: May we have a debate on food security, an issue that is rising up the political agenda? Bearing in mind that scientific evidence points to the world entering a 30-year cooling period- [ Interruption. ] This is true. However, to my knowledge, no assessment has been made of the effect of global cooling on agricultural output. This is an important and serious issue, and the House should have an opportunity to debate it.

Harriet Harman: We have just had Environment, Food and Rural Affairs questions, and DEFRA has just produced an unprecedented report called "Food 2030", which deals centrally with the question of food security, including against a background of global warming.

Stuart Bell: I will not ask the Leader of the House to alter her arrangements for the debates next week or call for an early debate, but does she agree that this Parliament is sorry that the sad story of expenses has brought it into disrepute? Does she agree that with the 62 recommendations of Sir Christopher Kelly, the publication today of the Legg review and five years of allowances, and the creation of the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority, which creates a new body to look at our expenses, the Government and Parliament have gone some way towards restoring public trust and confidence in this Parliament?

Harriet Harman: Yes, I believe that they have. We are in no doubt that the whole issue of expenses has damaged the reputation of the House, and public trust and confidence in Parliament. We are in no doubt that action needed to be taken, and it has. Everything to do with expenses is now fully out in the open and published. The current expenses system has been cut right back, and in future all expenses will be set and administered independently. On the basis of today's report, it is now clear which Members need to pay back and how much. Obviously, we expect all Members to make arrangements to repay and it is clear from the report that most already have. In any event, I will bring to the House a resolution to authorise the recovery from Members' salary or allowances of any amount outstanding after 22 February. All repayments will have had to be made-or firm arrangements to do so entered into-otherwise the recovery process will start after that date. The public can be confident that everything that should be paid back will be paid back, and I agree that today is an important step on the path to restoring public trust and confidence.

Julian Lewis: I am sure that all hon. Members welcome that statement by the Leader of the House. May I ask her for another statement about participation in important debates and statements by the respective parties-and I do not mean just in Divisions? As a shadow Defence Minister, I have noticed that defence debates include plenty of Government and Opposition speakers, but no Liberal Democrats. Yesterday, in an important defence statement, only a single Liberal Democrat Back Bencher asked a question. What is going on, and should not people be getting better value for money from the Liberal Democrats?

Harriet Harman: We are strongly committed to our armed forces and ensuring that their mission is clear, the numbers on the ground are sufficient, and that they have the kit and- [ Interruption. ]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) asked the question: he should listen to the answer.

Harriet Harman: I suspect that this is one of those occasions when the hon. Gentleman feels that the question was rather more important than the answer. However, I shall press on with my answer. The Government remain strongly committed to our defence forces, but the question of Liberal Democrat contributions to the issue is a matter for them.

Jim Sheridan: May we have a debate on the valuable work carried out by the vast majority of Members? That work has been undermined by the recent comments by the Leader of the Opposition comparing Members of Parliament to ciphers. That may be his view of his Back Benchers, but I am sure that it is not my right hon. and learned Friend's view of the Benches she has the pleasure of leading.

Harriet Harman: If that is indeed what the Leader of the Opposition said, it is a shame and I do not agree with him. However much I disagree with hon. Members, especially Opposition Members, I would not call them ciphers. It is for each and every one of us who is elected by constituents to come to this House to represent them, either in government or holding the Government to account, and it is up to all of us to do our work properly and support the work that the House does. Denigration of the House of Commons for party-political purposes is not the way to restore public trust and confidence in this institution.

Paul Burstow: May I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to early-day motion 626?
	 [That this House notes that the report of the National Audit Office (NAO) on dementia services found that there has not been a robust approach to implementation of the National Dementia Strategy; is concerned that the NAO concludes that the strategy has not been given the levers or urgency necessary; further notes that there is a lack of joined-up, well-informed commissioning necessary to redirect the resources needed to pay for new dementia services; regrets the lack of progress on basic training of healthcare professionals; and calls on the Government to put in place urgently the mechanisms needed to bring about the large-scale transformation of dementia services that are desperately needed.]
	Yesterday a report was published by the Alzheimer's Research Trust that found that more than 820,000 people in this country are afflicted by dementia, with countless families also affected, and that the cost to the UK economy is now £23 billion a year. There is a compelling case for investment by both charities and the Government in dementia: may we have an early debate on that case to see when the Government will make this a national priority?

Harriet Harman: We make time for debate on dementia, and services and support for the elderly, but I agree that we need to ensure that we put this specific issue on the agenda for debate. Dementia is one of the greatest challenges facing our society, and we fully recognise the importance of dementia research. By 2011, we will be investing more than ever-nearly £1.7 billion-in health research. We have received the report from the Alzheimer's Research Trust and will consider its findings, and of course a year ago we launched the first ever national dementia strategy, implementation of which is underway.

David Crausby: Given that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health refuses to answer my questions on Bolton primary care trust, when can the House have a debate on the accountability of PCTs?

Harriet Harman: Obviously, PCTs operate within a national framework, but within that framework they are supposed to be accountable to local people to deliver high-quality and improving local health services. Perhaps I can suggest that I will arrange a meeting between a Health Minister, my hon. Friend and the chair and chief executive of the PCT. Nobody should be so dissatisfied with a situation that means that they cannot get the answers they need to questions about important PCT services for constituents. He has raised an issue about which he obviously feels strongly, and I think that we need to set up a meeting to sort it out.

Edward Leigh: With regard to what the Leader of the House said earlier about the Equality Bill, she will know that concern was expressed in the other place that her amendments were so tightly drawn that they could have encompassed even the Archbishop of York, because he spends a lot of his time working in the community, not just proclaiming the liturgy. Being positive, and now that the Government are not overturning their defeats, can we take it that the Government now accept the principle that the Churches must be allowed to regulate their own clergy according to their own conscience?

Harriet Harman: The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong. We never sought to, or indeed even unintentionally, propose non-discrimination laws covering bishops, rabbis, archbishops or priests. In the 2003 non-discrimination employment regulations, we explicitly allowed for an exemption for those involved in religious ministry, so I am sorry that he has taken the opportunity to spread a misapprehension. There was never an intention-and nor is there an intention-to apply the provisions to those involved in religious ministry. However, if a church, synagogue or mosque is hiring a cleaner, bookkeeper or finance officer, it will have to comply with the normal, non-discrimination provisions of employment, like all others. I hope that, instead of spreading misapprehension, he will reassure those who raised that concern with him that it never was the Government's intention to make that change. The amendment simply clarified the difference between a religious and non-religious job, and whatever the criticisms of the drafting, which I do not accept, nobody could think that it would say that being Archbishop of Canterbury was not a religious job.

Lindsay Hoyle: My right hon. and learned Friend will want to hear about the good work of the Royal British Legion in Chorley, which raised more than £23,000 in the poppy appeal there. However, will she now give time to have a discussion on the Royal British Legion manifesto? This is important. We are coming up to an election, and I think that it would be a worthy topical debate.

Harriet Harman: I congratulate the Royal British Legion in Chorley, which is an organisation that my hon. Friend, as a Member of Parliament, strongly supports, and I will look for an opportunity to raise issues involving the Royal British Legion.

Nicholas Winterton: I shall not be back on 12 May, so will the Leader of the House do me a favour and give me an assurance that, as part of the debate on the reform of the House of Commons, she will negotiate with the Opposition parties about introducing a procedure preventing major parts of legislation from going from this House to the House of Lords without being debated here? That would be one way in which to restore people's confidence in the House and its responsibilities.

Harriet Harman: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should ask his Front-Bench colleagues whether they actually want those sorts of issues dealt with in the way that the Wright Committee suggests. We have to ensure that the Government, having produced a manifesto and been elected on the basis of promises made in it, can get their business through. Obviously, everyone wants provisions to be properly debated, and that depends also on everybody in the House ensuring that they limit their speeches and stick to the point, and then the business of scrutiny can be got through.

Andrew Pelling: Would it be possible for the Leader of the House to provide for a debate on recognising the achievements of military men and women and on the support that they can expect on leaving Her Majesty's armed forces? Such a debate would allow me to mention Michael Lyons of the New Addington Royal British Legion, who has campaigned for repairing school memorials, and for seeking out and securing the repair of the gravestones of servicemen who won the Victoria cross. I would also like to emphasise the great flexibility of Mayday hospital and the NHS in working to provide a centre for returning soldiers suffering from combat stress.

Harriet Harman: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle), the hon. Gentleman strongly supports his local Royal British Legion, and I commend the work that he has told the House about and which Mr. Lyons is doing in his constituency. Obviously, those in the armed forces regard their work as very rewarding, but we all recognise that it requires selfless duty and places many restrictions on the lives not only of our service personnel, which they willingly accept, but of their families. As he will know, the Ministry of Defence has produced a Command Paper setting out our commitment to our armed forces, their families and veterans. That is a cross-Government initiative. Furthermore, he mentioned stress and mental health issues. There are six ongoing mental health pilots within the NHS and throughout the country, and they will continue and be evaluated.

Keith Simpson: We understand that the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government intends to make an announcement just before the half-term recess about his decision on which unitary authorities can be established in Norfolk, Suffolk and Devon. May I urge upon the Leader of the House that a written statement at that stage is totally unacceptable? The Secretary of State should come to the House and explain it in an oral statement. Colleagues on both sides of the House feel strongly about the matter, and as she is probably aware, there has been a series of judicial challenges to the decisions made so far.

Harriet Harman: Obviously accountability on such issues is very important, whether through written or oral statements. I shall undertake the hon. Gentleman's request to discuss the matter with the Secretary of State and make absolutely sure that the right level of accountability will operate.

Robert Wilson: Given that the right hon. and learned Lady clearly believes in its continued importance and relevance in today's world, may we have a debate in Government time on papal infallibility?

Harriet Harman: That is not a matter for the House. What are matters for the House are public policy and legislative scrutiny, and what is a matter for the Government is to ensure that, although we respect the fact that some areas of religion must be subject to the control and decisions of those religions, for the rest, religious organisations, like everyone else, obey the law.

Angus MacNeil: If the Prime Minister is advocating a referendum on changing the voting system to the House, why is he going to restrict the public to two narrow choices? Why not put all options on the table, including the single transferable vote, and let the people decide? May we have a full debate?

Harriet Harman: I think that there will be a debate on day six of the Committee stage of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill, when the relevant amendments will come before the House.

Ian Liddell-Grainger: The Leader of the House was very helpful a few weeks ago when I asked about Indians having temporary work permits to work in the Avon and Somerset police authority. She sensibly suggested that I ask parliamentary questions, which I did, but I was told that the information would be too expensive to get. On the back of the security implications of people's data being seen by foreign nationals, may we have Government time to discuss what is an important issue not just in Avon and Somerset, but-I am told-across the United Kingdom?

Harriet Harman: I will follow up the hon. Gentleman's point. What is presumably being said is that providing the answer to the questions would incur disproportionate cost, but there is also an issue about the proportionate importance of these matters, so I will look at the questions and see whether we can assist him in getting them answered.

Peter Bone: I asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer a named day question about net contributions to the EU over the past three years. I got a holding answer, and I then got a rather bizarre answer addressed to the right hon. Member for Wellingborough. [Hon. Members: "Hear, hear!"] More importantly, it did not answer my question; it simply referred to a footnote in a table, so nobody could actually see the answer. Will the Deputy Prime Minister, who does not do devious, summon the Chancellor to her office, discipline him, and report back next week that she has done so?

Harriet Harman: Sometimes, the Treasury has to do complicated, and I think that that might be what has happened in this case. However, I think that referring hon. Members to footnotes that refer to other footnotes, which refer to tables in documents that are not readily to hand, is not the way to provide full and open accountability. I know that the Treasury wants to be fully and openly accountable about this country's contributions to Europe, against the background that working with Europe is important in regard not only to security and climate change but to the economy. I will therefore ensure that the hon. Gentleman gets a full answer.

Philip Hollobone: May I be straightforward and understandable? May we have a debate on the Floor of the House in Government time on the loss of national identity? In the week in which the Townswomen's Guild published the results of a survey of its 34,000 members which showed that over 95 per cent. were concerned that Britain was losing its national identity as a result of the scale of mass immigration that the country is currently having to put up with, it is important that politicians in this place should be seen to be discussing the issue.

Harriet Harman: Indeed. Those same points were made against the background of Irish immigration. They were also made in respect of Jewish immigration, and of those immigrants who came here from the Caribbean, particularly to work on London transport and in our health services. This country has great traditions from those who have been here for generations, and it has become great on the back of the work of many successive waves of immigrants over the centuries and in the past decades. It is important to ensure that we recognise the contributions of immigrants, and that we have a fair society in which everyone feels that they get a fair crack of the whip.

Mark Harper: I want to take the Leader of the House back to the point raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) about terrorist asset freezing. Given that the Government had ample warning of the potential loophole in the law but took no steps to plug it, and given the amount of time that will have elapsed before it is eventually plugged, how much money belonging to terrorists or terrorist organisations does she think will be left in the country to be captured by the retrospective legislation that she is introducing next week?

Harriet Harman: Obviously, work was under way in the Treasury to ensure that contingency plans would be in place to bring forward arrangements, should the Court not allow a stay of execution of its judgment. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that it would have been odd for the Government to introduce legislative provisions to deal with a situation that had not yet been decided on in the Supreme Court. Planning and preparation have been under way, and now that the Court has made its decision, which it did yesterday, we have told the House how we are going to deal with this matter. We are going to publish to the House the specific provisions; we are going to publish the Bill tomorrow, and on Monday it will complete all its stages in this House. It will be clear that it will be retrospective. The answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is none.

Point of Order

Mark Harper: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. In business questions, my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) raised the scandal of the 12,000 disabled students who are waiting for grants. Those students have been failed by the Student Loans Company. That story raises the issue of accountability to the House. That information was gathered by my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) by way of a freedom of information request to the Student Loans Company. The same requests were made through a number of parliamentary questions that I tabled to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills in December. Unfortunately, those questions remain unanswered. This morning, my office spoke to the office of the Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-East (Mr. McFadden). Following that, and my giving notice that I was going to raise this point of order, I have now been told that those questions will be answered today. Is it not outrageous that, while answers can be obtained as a result of freedom of information requests, parliamentary questions on the same topic can remain unanswered for nearly two months? What can be done to ensure that this gross discourtesy to the House does not recur?

Madam Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has placed his remarks on record, and they will clearly be read by those concerned. The Speaker and the other occupants of the Chair have a responsibility for what happens in Parliament, and Ministers' responses. The hon. Gentleman's comments will have been noted.

Crime and Security Bill (Ways and Means)

Motion made, and Question proposed,
	That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Crime and Security Bill, it is expedient to authorise-
	(1) the imposition of charges in respect of the cost of adjudications of appeals relating to vehicle immobilisation and release; and
	(2) the payment of sums into the Consolidated Fund.- (Mr. Timms.)

Claire Ward: Hon. Members will recall that the House agreed a money resolution in respect of the Crime and Security Bill after its Second Reading on 18 January. Since then, the Government have tabled amendments to the Bill to establish a compensation scheme for victims of overseas terrorism, and to provide for a scheme to be set up so that motorists can appeal to an independent tribunal or adjudicator in respect of release charges when their vehicle has been clamped. Both these matters need to be covered by a Ways and Means resolution before the amendments can be considered in the Public Bill Committee. I commend the resolution to the House.

Andrew Rosindell: I am most grateful to the Minister for outlining the purpose of today's brief Ways and Means debate on the Crime and Security Bill. Certain financial implications will flow from some of the necessary measures in the Bill, however, and I am concerned that the Government appear not to have thought through the process involved from day one.

Peter Bone: Was not my hon. Friend amazed by the speed with which the Minister introduced this resolution, without giving any proper information or figures?

Andrew Rosindell: Yes, that was rather surprising, and I hope that she will come back at the end of the debate and address the whole range of questions to which the public need an answer. The provisions have major positive implications for those whose vehicles are clamped by cowboy clampers, but they also have financial implications for Government expenditure, as well as raising questions about any legal fees that might flow from them and about what the public might have to pay. There is also a possibility of local authorities having to spend money in this respect. These issues really need explanation, and I am surprised that the Minister has brushed them all aside and failed to address them at the start of this important discussion.

Lee Scott: This is a well-meaning law that will, without question, benefit people. I want to see an end to these cowboy clampers charging exorbitant amounts to people who, in many cases, have not parked illegally. Does my hon. Friend agree, however, that the correct funding must be given to local government, rather than expecting it to come from their existing budgets? Otherwise, the pressures on local government would just be too much to bear.

Andrew Rosindell: My hon. Friend makes an extremely valid point. Having served on a local authority myself, I know how easy it is for Governments to bring in new laws and regulations that impose financial obligations on local government without considering their impact on local government costs or any increase in council tax that might result. I hope that the Minister will explain herself at the end of this debate so that we can all understand the issue and explain to our local councillors and our constituents how this will be implemented, particularly the cost implications, along with the practicalities.

Shailesh Vara: I share my colleague's concern at the paucity of the Minister's comments. This is an important issue. In talking about charges, it is obviously important to explain what sort of charges will be involved. Will it cover full legal costs; will there be a scale rate; will there be fixed costs, and so on? I have to say that the paucity of comments from the Minister is somewhat breathtaking.

Andrew Rosindell: My hon. Friend emphasises the point. I have no doubt that when I have concluded my remarks-I have many points to make-the Minister will take the opportunity to explain herself and explain the Government's rather haphazard way of dealing with this matter, so that we can decide whether it is appropriate for the House to approve this motion today.
	Of course, Her Majesty's Opposition welcome the provisions in the Crime and Security Bill to license businesses that engage in vehicle immobilisation. This change to the law is, I believe, long overdue, and I have no doubt that this will come as good news to motorists up and down the land, who are heartily fed up with being stung by cowboy clampers who charge exorbitant sums of money to all our constituents when they unwittingly park on private land, not realising the extent to which they could be fined. This, of course, has financial implications for the Government, for local authorities and, most importantly, for the constituents we are elected to represent. The Minister will need to answer these points.
	I am sure that hon. Members from all parties will recall many examples of situations like this in their own constituencies. I certainly do. I have been contacted many times by constituents who have been clamped and fined huge sums of money. Their vehicles are immobilised and this can lead-

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member may be straying rather wide of the motion, which is quite a narrow one. Will he now confine his remarks to the motion currently before the House?

Andrew Rosindell: I will certainly endeavour to do so, but the points I am making have implications for the costs at local level. Until I can explain my arguments to the Minister, it is hard to see how she will be able to respond in a meaningful way.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Let me remind the hon. Member of the purpose of the motion. I am sure that he is aware of it. We understand the background, so he should concentrate his remarks on the motion set out on the Order Paper.

Andrew Rosindell: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The motion on the Order Paper seeks to authorise "the imposition of charges", and I would like to focus on the word "imposition". Why has the Minister not explained how these charges are to be imposed? Who will administer this measure? Will the Government make adequate provision to ensure that it is done in a practical and meaningful way that will work? I would be most grateful if the Minister would outline the cost implications in greater detail. What overall costs for the appeals process are envisaged? What assessment have the Government made of how many people are likely to use this service? How much would each appeal cost on average? These are important questions that simply must be answered.

Shailesh Vara: I think it is important to establish at this early stage whether the Minister intends to come back to the House and answer some of the very important questions that have been raised. The word "charges" is very broad and very vague, so I wonder whether my hon. Friend will be able to tempt the Minister to come back and give an assurance that she will make a substantive response as to what sort of charges are proposed.

Andrew Rosindell: I think my hon. Friend makes a valid point. I hope that the Minister has got the message at this stage-that those present in the House today feel that more detail should be given. How can we, as the House of Commons, make a judgment when so little information has been provided? I understand that the basis of the motion is financial, but to assess whether any financial motion should be approved, we need to understand how it will work in practice. The Minister will take the opportunity, I hope, to answer these questions and allay the concerns that many of our constituents may have.
	May I also ask the Minister how much will be paid into the Consolidated Fund? How does she expect to recoup any of these costs? This involves taxpayers' money, so we need to know the answer to that question. Who, indeed, would pay the legal fees of those clamped but found innocent? Where would the money to deal with all of this come from?

Shailesh Vara: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is very important to have clarification of the payment of fees? Will the charges apply to the separate parties or will they also include payment of the adjudicator and the adjudication process, which will have incurred some costs? Is this to be a system under which costs will be paid between the parties alone and what will the rates be? For example, if legal advice is provided, will all the attendant costs be covered or will there be a scale-based rate? It is highly important to clarify whether or not adjudication fees will be paid. Again, will they be paid at the proper cost rate or will there be fixed charges and a scale rate?

Andrew Rosindell: Once again, my hon. Friend makes extremely valid points about how this whole system will work, what charges will be imposed, who will pay the bills for the adjudicators and the legal costs when things go wrong and how the system will operate in practice. We are being asked to approve the financial implementation without being given the full details of how the whole system will work in practice.
	Will the Minister clarify whether there are any financial implications for local authorities? Will the same rules apply to private operators as to local councils that are responsible for parking enforcement on the public highways? Will she also explain how the system will work without a code of practice? Her Majesty's Opposition agree that there is a need for adjudication-

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I apologise for interrupting the hon. Member again, but I repeat that he is going wide of the motion. Let me re-emphasise that the motion is very narrow. I understand his concerns, but I am afraid that it is not appropriate to raise them in this debate.

Andrew Rosindell: Thank you for that clarification, Madam Deputy Speaker. I think we are all looking forward to the Minister answering these questions, as only the Minister can reveal what is behind this motion. I look forward to finding that out.
	Finally, will the Bill's provisions that apply to wheel-clamping on private land also apply to ticketing, because financial implications are equally evident there? Will the appeals process be applicable to parking tickets as well? The financial implications need to be explained.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I am afraid that the hon. Member has gone wide of the remit once again.

Andrew Rosindell: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I think that anyone watching this debate will wonder why it is that we cannot get to the nub of these questions. I understand the procedures of the House, Madam Deputy Speaker, but the problem is wholly due to the lack of a proper explanation by the Minister at the start of this debate.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. All I have to say to the hon. Member is that although people listening to the debate may not be aware of how narrow the motion is, Members present for the debate should be aware of that-and most are. That is why we are so restricted.

Andrew Rosindell: Thank you. I give way to my hon. Friend.

Shailesh Vara: I fully appreciate the narrowness of the motion, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I trust that the House will appreciate the vastness of its implications. What we are trying to ascertain from the Minister are the precise details of a measure that will have a huge impact. Does my hon. Friend agree that, given the vastness of its consequences, one of the questions that the Minister must answer is "What are the Government trying to hide with the sparseness of their comments?"

Andrew Rosindell: We are still waiting with bated breath to hear what the Minister will have to say. I am baffled-we are all baffled-as to what the Government are trying to achieve, because we have not been given a proper explanation. Perhaps this constitutes a lesson: if the Government wish to table a motion of this sort, they should at least explain what they are doing.

Peter Bone: I think my hon. Friend is about to end his speech, but I should say at this point that I am in a dilemma. If the House divides, I shall not be sure how to vote, because I have not heard the Government's argument. Has my hon. Friend any advice for me?

Andrew Rosindell: That is a good question. We shall have to see what the Minister's explanation is before the House decides whether or not to divide. I hope that she will come clean and reveal everything. I should of course have preferred a more reasonable discussion enabling our constituents who are watching the debate to understand the purpose of the motion, but no doubt the Minister will now explain the background so that we can understand a little better.
	Important details are hidden behind the motion. The whole issue of wheel-clamping is of great concern to our constituents, and we want financial provision to be made to ensure that the Bill will work effectively. We are all fed up with cowboy clampers. I assure you, Madam Deputy Speaker, that Her Majesty's Opposition will do all that they can to support any sensible measure, practical or financial, to ensure that there is an end to cowboy clamping in our constituencies.

David Heath: What a meal the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) has made of the Ways and Means motion. Having said that, however, I should like to make a couple of brief procedural points.
	Let me say first that the motion is before us because-yet again-substantial new parts of the Bill were introduced in Committee. Given that this is one of the criminal justice Bills with which we deal every year, it was to be hoped that Ministers would think a little about what they wanted to be in it before publishing it. The motion is before us because they did not, and they have now decided to add a couple of provisions. I do not know the merits of the provisions. I suspect that they are a very good idea-I should certainly like to see proper control of clampers and proper compensation for overseas victims of terrorism-but they should have been in the Bill from the start.
	My second procedural point concerns the timing of the motion. The matters involved are still before the Committee, which has yet to report to the House. It is always helpful for the House to be aware of what has been determined in Committee, and, before Report, to deal with the appropriate Ways and Means motion in order to authorise expenditure that is at present entirely hypothetical, because it is based on consideration in Committee of matters that the House as a whole has not yet had an opportunity to discuss.
	A Ways and Means motion is not the occasion on which to judge the merits of proposals such as this, far less to ask for details of the operation of a scheme. A Committee stage is the occasion on which that should be done, and the Report stage-if we reach it-will provide an opportunity for Members to have their say and for Ministers to explain the consequences of their proposals.
	As you pointed out, Madam Deputy Speaker, this is a very narrow motion whose purpose is to authorise payments if, and only if, the proposals are found to be satisfactory on Report, pass through another place and receive Royal Assent. There is a scrutiny process and we do need to examine the details, but this is not the right time to do that. I have my doubts about the procedure as currently constituted. I do not think that even the limited consideration that we can give the proposals during the debate makes this an appropriate time to examine them.

Peter Bone: It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath). I entirely agree with what he said about the procedure. I think it is generally accepted that dealing with money motions is one of the things that Parliament does very badly. The question of how we spend money is not debated properly. I recall, Madam Deputy Speaker, that you were in the Chair when I was trying not to deviate from the terms of a Ways and Means motion when we were spending £40 billion in one and a half hours.
	I had no intention of speaking today, but I was interested to see what the business was. I have the utmost regard for the Minister, but we are discussing spending money, and she has not told us how much is to be spent. If she had told us that it was £50,000 or £5 million-

David Heath: She does not know. We have not made the law yet.

Peter Bone: That is one of the reasons why I am a little concerned about the timing.

Shailesh Vara: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Peter Bone: Briefly.

Shailesh Vara: I am grateful. Given the financial state of the country, does my hon. Friend agree that it is particularly relevant for a motion of this kind to refer to money, and to specific amounts?

Peter Bone: I disagree. I think that Ways and Means motions should always be debated in full. The spending of money is a very important aspect, but I do not think that the fact that we are in a financial mess of unique magnitude makes any difference to the fact that we should always discuss ways and means. However, I do not know how we are to do that without having been given even an estimate of the amount involved, and without knowing whether the Minister is going to tell us more. Perhaps little notes are being passed to her; I do not know.
	I do not want to detain the House for long, but I am trying to make a serious point. We know about the principle, which was a matter for the Committee and will be decided on Report. However, we debate Ways and Means motions very rarely. We normally nod them through, saying, "Oh yes, it is all right to spend that amount of money." That is where our Parliament fails and the American House of Representatives, for instance, succeeds.
	Given the furore that is undoubtedly going on outside this place today about the importance of Parliament, it is sad that, yet again, the Government have in a sense taken Parliament for granted, and have not given us more detail on a specific Ways and Means motion. The merits of the issue are not important; what is important is how much we are, or are not, going to spend. When I decide how to vote, or whether to divide the House, I want to be in a position to know that. I have a feeling that if the Minister does not tell us, the Division Bells will ring.

John Pugh: I had not intended to speak either. The other day, however, I received a letter from the Minister about a constituent who has failed to secure compensation as a victim of terrorism, although the Minister acknowledged that he had indeed been a victim of terrorism. Let me say a little about the case, very briefly and, I hope, sticking to the point-

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has been in the Chamber when I have drawn attention to the narrowness of the motion and the debate. I understand his concern for his constituent, but I have a feeling that this is not the appropriate time to raise that case.

John Pugh: The point that I wish to raise is slightly procedural, and is also concerned with Government inconsistency. My constituent has been acknowledged by the Minister to be a victim of terrorism, but the Foreign Office has never acknowledged that. He has campaigned-

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I am afraid that I must rule the hon. Gentleman out of order. This is a Ways and Means motion. The hon. Gentleman may well have a case on behalf of his constituent that requires answering, but I regret to tell him that this is not the time or the place at which to raise it.

Claire Ward: With the leave of the House, Madam Deputy Speaker, I should like to respond to the ingenuity of the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) in managing to extend the areas covered by the resolution in order to question many substantive areas of the legislation itself.
	We are dealing with a Ways and Means motion, not a money motion. The motion that we are discussing is not, therefore, about the cost of the provisions, but about the charges and payments into the Consolidated Fund.

Shailesh Vara: Will the Minister give way?

Claire Ward: I am well aware that the hon. Gentleman is seeking to ensure that there are opportunities to do other things around the House this afternoon, so I shall co-operate completely and give way to him.

Shailesh Vara: I am most grateful to the Minister for giving way. She said the motion has little to do with cost, but may I remind her that it refers to
	"charges in respect of the cost of adjudications"?
	As she said earlier that this has everything to do with charges and little to do with costs, I would be grateful for some clarification.

Claire Ward: It is not to do with costs; it is about charges and payments in relation to the Consolidated Fund.
	May I now be allowed to try to answer some of the specific issues that have been raised? Questions were asked about the details and the costs and charges of this scheme in respect of wheel-clamping. They will be discussed in Committee.

Shailesh Vara: The Minister has said there will be a consultation. Can she assure the House that it will not be the usual type of Government consultation, which is a sop to public opinion with decisions already having been made but a consultation taking place for the sake of it? Will she give an assurance that genuine consultation will take place, and that the views of those consulted will be taken into account before decisions are made?

Claire Ward: The hon. Gentleman should know that the Government always take into account the views expressed in consultations before coming to a view.
	The Private Security Industry Act 2001 places a requirement on individual vehicle immobilisers who operate on private land-questions were asked about the impact on local authorities, but this applies not to local authority land, but to private land-carrying out the clamping of vehicles and the associated activities of towing or impounding. They must hold a licence issued by the Security Industry Authority if they charge a release fee.

Andrew Rosindell: I fully appreciate that the Bill does not apply to local authorities and their land, but does the Minister not accept that it is bound to have a financial impact on local authorities, because the public always go to the local council when there is a parking problem? Even when that takes place on private land, they still go to the council, so this will still have an impact on local authority spending.

Claire Ward: The hon. Gentleman is straying into rather more substantive issues to do with the Bill more generally, and they will, of course, be dealt with in Committee. This measure refers specifically to private land, and the action people might take and who they might approach if their vehicle has been clamped cannot be addressed in respect of it.

Peter Bone: The excellent Minister is being most helpful, but I must be being extremely thick today. If this is a Ways and Means motion, there must be an estimate of the money, because if there is not, why are we here? I shall need to be told that figure before making up my mind as to whether we should have a Division.

Claire Ward: Well, the hon. Gentleman must decide whether he wishes to call a Division, and thereby take a step that his constituents-or mine, for that matter-might decide was simply challenging the substantive issue itself and seeking not to allow the usual procedures to take place that would ensure this important measure makes progress through the House. That is a decision for him. I have said to him that questions of charges and fees will be considered, to some extent, in Committee, and also in consultation. I can only reiterate that this is a Ways and Means motion and that therefore it is about not the cost of provisions or the finer detail, but the charges and payments.

Andrew Rosindell: rose-

Claire Ward: I shall give way again, but perhaps the hon. Gentleman will then allow me to answer one or two of the points that he made.

Andrew Rosindell: I certainly will. The Minister is doing an excellent job in trying to persuade the House not to call a Division on this matter, but does she accept that there is so much concern in the House today because of both the poor explanation at the beginning of the debate and the muddled way in which the Government have handled our discussion and the issue of introducing further motions? There will be another Ways and Means motion in respect of this Bill next week. It seems to me that the whole Bill is more about the forthcoming election than actually achieving results for the British people.

Claire Ward: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that these are important matters, which is why the Government are responding to the views that have been expressed to us by bringing forward these measures. In respect of the resolution that is required for the overseas victims of terrorism scheme, that is a complicated scheme and given that it has been a difficult task, I believe the Government have done all we possibly can to ensure that we bring forward this legislation as soon as possible and in the most appropriate fashion.
	Clause 39 of the Bill amends the 2001 Act to provide for vehicle immobilisation businesses to require a licence issued by the SIA in order to carry out these activities. Regulations will specify the conditions that businesses will have to meet in order to qualify for a licence. These will include maximum release charges and other rules governing clamping, towing and impounding.
	A Government amendment to the Bill provides for a scheme to be set up so that motorists can appeal to an independent tribunal or adjudicator in respect of release charges. Appeals can be on either the principle of the charge-for example, if the signs were inadequate-or the amount charged, if it exceeds the maximum to be set. The detail of the appeal arrangements and rules will be set out in regulations to be made for the purpose.
	The appeal scheme will be funded largely by the vehicle immobilisation industry. The fixed costs of running an appeals system would be met by businesses as part of their business licence fee. It is proposed that vehicle immobilisation businesses will also pay a set sum in respect of the total variable running costs of adjudications, covering costs such as the adjudicator's time and the costs of accommodation for hearings.

Shailesh Vara: The Minister said that the costs are being paid "largely" by one body. Which other bodies or groups will be making up the difference?

Claire Ward: The full details of the costs of the scheme will be considered in Committee. Let me simply say today that we are making provision through the Ways and Means motion to ensure that this procedure can be debated thoroughly in Committee.
	Businesses will only pay the sum to which I have just referred when they lose an appeal. As a result, the payment will reflect the variable costs of all adjudications. It is also intended that the motorist will be required to pay a modest fee for each appeal made, irrespective of whether that appeal succeeds. The intention is not to burden appellants unduly, but to discourage speculative appeals without foundation.
	Since the payment made by losing companies will contribute to covering the costs of other cases where the vehicle immobilisation business has won the appeal, and it will be based on averaging out the costs over all appeal cases, there is an element of cross-subsidy. The Home Office believes that this is the fairest approach; the bulk of the overall cost is met by those companies that lose appeals, but a modest fee will discourage motorists from speculative appeals. In general, a Ways and Means resolution is needed if people are required to pay out money other than for a service or other benefit that they are receiving fairly directly.
	The House will be aware that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary announced on Second Reading that we would table amendments to the Bill to provide for the establishment of a victims of overseas terrorism compensation scheme. As with the legislation governing the domestic criminal injuries compensation scheme, the amendments to the Bill include provision for compensation to be repayable in circumstances specified in the scheme. The criminal injuries compensation scheme of 2008 provides for compensation to be repaid where the beneficiary subsequently receives a payment in respect of the same injury from another source-for example, following a civil claim for damages. We envisage that the overseas terrorism compensation scheme will include a similar provision. As with the domestic scheme, new clause 14 tabled to the Bill provides for any such repayments to be paid into the Consolidated Fund. Provisions in legislation about the use of receipts must be authorised by a Ways and Means resolution, hence the second paragraph of the motion before the House today.
	We have had an extensive debate-

Peter Bone: rose-

Claire Ward: But clearly not extensive enough, and as there is still time left that the hon. Gentleman wishes to ensure is available to him, I am more than happy to give way.

Peter Bone: I am very grateful to the Minister, who is being extremely generous in giving way. She is winning me over, I have to say. I grasped the point on the issues relating to vehicles-slowly-and I am with her on that. However, the terrorism issue is not mentioned in the motion as such. If we could have a little more explanation of that, she might win me over.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I am afraid I must intervene ahead of the Minister and say that that is wide of the motion.

Claire Ward: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for your guidance. I am not sure there was much more I could have added without getting into a debate on the substantive nature of the amendments, and I am sure that Members will want to have that opportunity in Committee or when the Bill returns to this House.
	This is an important motion that has been debated more than thoroughly by the House today. The right place to debate matters of detail, of course, is in the Public Bill Committee, where there will be an opportunity for its members to discuss the amendments. I hope the House will give its full support to the Ways and Means motion today, and I commend it to the House.
	 Question put and agreed to.

Corporation Tax Bill

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 60(8)),
	That the Committee of the whole House be discharged from considering the Bill .-(Mr. Timms.)
	 Question agreed to.
	 Third Reading

Stephen Timms: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
	I am pleased to open this Third Reading debate on the Corporation Tax Bill, and delighted to be debating once again with the hon. Members for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Gauke) and for Stockport-

John Pugh: Southport.

Stephen Timms: Indeed; that is not the first time that I have made that mistake. The three of us took part in a rather different discussion yesterday.
	This Bill rewrites a range of corporation tax provisions, including provisions about the computation of profits, small profits relief, losses, group relief and distributions. It also rewrites some provisions that are more specialised-for example, those related to UK real estate investment trusts and others related to avoidance.
	The Bill has been produced by Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs' tax law rewrite project and continues the project's work to modernise direct tax legislation so that it is clearer and easier to use. Last year, the project completed the first part of the task of rewriting corporation tax when the Corporation Tax Act 2009 was enacted. This Bill completes that work and means that, substantially, the whole of the legislation relating to corporation tax will have been rewritten.
	Let me remind the House about the work of the tax law rewrite project. It was set up in 1996 by the then Chancellor-the current shadow Business Secretary-following a defeat for the then Government in the Finance Bill Committee, of which I was a member, on an amendment moved by the then hon. Member for Beaconsfield, Tim Smith. The project has, on the whole, continued to enjoy support from across the House since its establishment. Its principal aim is that the rewritten legislation should be far more accessible to users than the source legislation, some of which is dense and difficult to follow. Its success has been widely acknowledged and confirmed by independent market research.
	To date, the project has rewritten the capital allowances and income tax legislation, and completed the first part of the task of rewriting corporation tax legislation. This Bill is the sixth produced by the project. The project takes great care to ensure that the legislation's effect is essentially unchanged by rewriting, but it can make minor changes in the law where they improve the legislation-for example, to remove ambiguity, to repeal obsolete provisions or to correct minor, unintended anomalies. There are 66 such changes set out in the explanatory notes to this Bill. Major changes will always be matters for a Finance Bill. All proposed changes in the law are considered by both the project's committees, and no minor changes are included in the Bill without the approval of both.
	The work would have been impossible without considerable input from tax specialists and others, and I express particular thanks to them and to the members of the project's consultative committee, chaired by Miss Robina Dyall, who have ensured that the consultation has been detailed and thorough. The consultative committee includes representatives of small and large businesses, accountants, lawyers and other tax specialists. The time and commitment they have all invested are greatly appreciated.
	The strategy of the project is set by its steering committee, chaired by the noble Lord Newton of Braintree, which includes Members from both Houses of Parliament and members of the judiciary, of business and consumer groups and of the accountancy and legal professions. I am particularly grateful to Lord Newton, who took over from the noble Lord Howe, for his commitment and guidance, and to the members of his committee.
	The Joint Committee of both Houses, of which I was a member, chaired by the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie), considered the Bill on 11 January and noted the extensive consultation process to which it had been exposed. It paid close attention to the reasons for rewriting recently enacted legislation, the impact of the rewrite changes proposed in the Bill, and the powers in the Bill to amend the legislation. It also considered all the amendments to the Bill. The Joint Committee concluded that the Bill is a welcome clarification of the existing law, which, as a result, will be easier to use and more accessible. The Committee was satisfied that the changes to the law were of very minor significance and it accepted the amendments, all of which were technical.
	This Bill is the second of two Bills that rewrite corporation tax legislation. Some of the corporation tax rules in it originally applied to both income tax and corporation tax, but as the tax law rewrite project's previous Acts provided a separate set of provisions for income tax, the income tax provisions have been in the rewrite style, whereas the corresponding corporation tax provisions remained in the original form. The Bill finishes the process of bringing the drafting of corporation tax back into line with that for income tax where the provisions share the same source legislation.
	The Bill is a worthwhile contribution to modernising direct tax legislation, making it clearer and easier to use, and it maintains the project's excellent record in improving current legislation and has been welcomed by those who use it. I am very grateful for the support that has been shown across the House throughout this exercise, and I commend the Bill to the House.

David Gauke: It is pleasure to speak on Third Reading. This is very nearly the end of the process-we have another Bill to discuss this afternoon-but it is a good opportunity for us to thank those who have been involved in it over the past 14 years. As the Minister said, it all began in 1996 when my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, set up the tax law rewrite project. He went on to Chair the Joint Committee on Tax Law Rewrite Bills. Those are two of the many contributions-both past and future-that he will have made to public life.
	By the time a tax Bill reaches its Third Reading, an Opposition Front Bencher has usually devoted what feels like weeks of their life to addressing the matter. The tax law rewrite project process is unusual, in that an Opposition Front Bencher's involvement tends to be on Second Reading and Third Reading. The Minister has a slightly greater role as a member of the Committee, but I am sure that he would be the first to accept that it is not quite as demanding upon his time as a Finance Bill would normally be.
	None the less, for many people this has been the most enormous project, and one should pay tribute to those who have been involved in it: the independent steering committee, which is chaired by Lord Newton and, as the Minister said, was previously chaired by Lord Howe of Aberavon, who has had a long-term interest in the making of tax law; Members of both Houses who have been part of the Joint Committee; members of the judiciary, and of the legal and accounting professions; and business and consumer groups. I particularly wish to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie) for his service as Chair of the Joint Committee. In its report, which I read through, he acknowledged that he was new to the process, but he handled the proceedings with the skill that one would expect of him.
	I also wish to thank the consultative committee, which consisted of members of the main tax and business representative bodies, and the many consultees involved in the process, both in the professional organisations and businesses, and in Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs. They responded to the project by devoting a great deal of their time to it, without any compensation as such, and they played an important role in developing this law.
	Of course I also wish to thank the tax law rewrite project team for all its efforts over many years in developing this legislation. The first bit of legislation was the Capital Allowances Act 2001. It was followed by three Acts relating to income tax: the Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Act 2003, ITEPA; the Income Tax (Trading and Other Income) Act 2005, ITTOIA; and the more simply-named Income Tax Act 2007. In this context, one should also mention the Income Tax (Pay As You Earn) Regulations 2003. The legislation on corporation tax is: the Corporation Tax Act 2009, this Bill and the Taxation (International and Other Provisions) Bill, which we will debate subsequently.
	I have set out my thanks to all those involved in the process; the level of professionalism has been very high. I now wish to raise a query that the Minister will anticipate, and it is not, in any way, meant to take away from anything done by those who have been involved in the process. Does the process go far enough? It has required a great deal of expertise, it has placed great demands upon the consultees and it has cost £37 million, which is not an insignificant sum.
	It is worth citing the remarks made by John Whiting, the tax policy director of the Chartered Institute of Taxation, with whom those of us who have anything to do with tax tend to be familiar. He said:
	"The Rewrite has done a good job but our concern has always been that it has not really been the right job. The new law is certainly clearer but it would have been better to put the effort into simplifying the system rather than just the wording."
	He went on to say that
	"the Institute believes that bringing the Rewrite to a close is correct, as we have previously said. We would hope that more effort can now be put into simplifying the tax system."
	We fully endorse those remarks.
	The importance of the project has not just been about the rewriting of the legislation and the provision of greater clarity in the wording-that is important; we can build upon a lot of the work that has been done, because we can use some of the structures that exist. For example, the Joint Committee involves parliamentarians making use of outside expertise to scrutinise technical legislation with perhaps more thoroughness than we normally achieve through the Finance Bill process. I have had the honour of being part of that process for the past four years, but I wonder whether, in this complicated area of tax law, a committee that can inquire more than debate and that has access to expert advice is able to provide greater scrutiny than the traditional parliamentary process.

John Pugh: There is a general demand, which I think we all accept, from business to have corporation tax simplified. However, the paradox is that when one starts talking about removing a specific allowance that affects a specific business, the tune changes somewhat. Thus, it is rather difficult to conduct the process in a universally agreed way.

David Gauke: The hon. Gentleman makes a perfectly good point; the losers tend to make more noise than the winners-that is inevitable. I was coming to the issue of simplification, which relates to the argument that John Whiting has been making. Two elements are worth exploring, the first of which is the possibility of a greater degree of scrutiny. The tax law rewrite project has involved scrutiny, but the project has had a very limited remit: to focus on rewriting the language. We will discuss the conclusions that have resulted from that.
	The second element is the push towards simplification, and I take on board fully the remarks of the hon. Member for Southport (Dr. Pugh) about that. None the less, the view of my party is that simplification is worth pursuing. All this, whether we are discussing the clarity of language, which is what this Bill is about, or simplification, fits into the issue of the competitiveness of the tax system. I will not digress at any length into corporation tax rates, for example, but this is obviously a Bill on corporation tax and it would be remiss of me not to mention the fact that we used to have a corporation tax rate that was lower than the OECD average in 1997, whereas it is now higher. In 1997, the UK had the 11th lowest corporation tax rate in the world, and now has the 23rd lowest-

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. May I remind the hon. Gentleman that, as he has recognised, there are some limits to this debate? I hope that he will recognise that and confine his remarks appropriately.

David Gauke: I am grateful for that guidance, Madam Deputy Speaker.
	I certainly shall not pursue the issue of corporation tax rates, but clearly the intention behind the Bill is to improve the clarity of corporation tax law. That is an important element in improving-or trying to improve-the competitiveness of the UK tax system. Our argument is that we should go further and that simplification would do much to improve our competitiveness. The process that we have seen in the tax law rewrite project is a valuable guide to how we could go further. I shall not dwell on our proposal for an office of tax simplification, which would make use, as this project has, of the expertise in the tax professions, in businesses, in HMRC and in HM Treasury to ensure that we develop our tax law in an attractive way.
	It is worth stressing that we live in a very competitive world. The UK, in many respects, should be well placed to benefit from a globalised world, but it needs a competitive tax system. May I briefly highlight the fact that in 1997 the UK was fourth in the World Economic Forum's global competitiveness report's ranking for having the lowest tax burden? According to a measurement that is not exactly the same but is the closest equivalent, it is now ranked 84th for the extent and effect of taxation. That is a substantial decline, not because of the tax rewrite project but despite it, of course. None the less, we need to go much further. We believe that an office of tax simplification would be a huge step forward.
	Let me raise another query with which the Minister might be familiar, as he briefly touched on it in his remarks. The argument was often made that making legislation clearer in the context of income tax was very important. Income tax is relevant to nearly all of us, whereas companies tend to be advised on corporation tax. It is an area that inevitably involves some specialist expertise. Is it quite as necessary to pursue a rewrite project in that context?
	Of course, the first point to make-the Minister touched on this-is that there is an interrelationship between income tax and corporation tax, and having reformed income tax, it makes sense to follow with this corporation tax Bill. The second point is that existing practitioners are often somewhat dubious about the project, because they already know where everything is. They are familiar with the existing law and the various sections and schedules, and they know their way around. There is a complication when a new Act that changes things around is introduced. Of course, one must have a degree of intergenerational fairness to tax advisers in this area, and it might well be easier for future generations to find their way around with this new legislation.
	Sometimes it is recent legislation that is being amended-again, the Minister touched on this point. In particular, he highlighted the legislation on real estate investment trusts. The regime for REITs was introduced in 2006, and it is substantially rewritten in the Bill. I was struck by the remarks of John Sellers, the head drafter of HMRC's tax law rewrite project, in Committee on 11 January. He referred to the substantial recasting of REIT legislation and went on to say:
	"the legislation had been passed, I think, at a point when policy was still being developed and in those circumstances it was difficult to achieve the optimum arrangement of the material."
	A couple of points can be made about that. First, I would be interested to know from the Minister, with his vast experience as a Treasury Minister, how often legislation is passed while policy is still being developed? Perhaps naively, I thought that the policy came first and the legislation followed, but possibly that was not the case. Perhaps that was a peculiarity of the Minister at the time, who, if I recall correctly, is now the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families. None the less, that is somewhat surprising. We will always face the need to improve the clarity of legislation if we do it that way round-if we do the legislation first and the policy second. That is somewhat surprising in this context because, if I recall correctly, the REIT legislation was in gestation for some time. It was not rushed. I would be grateful if the Minister could tell us why it has been necessary to recast it.
	Let me return to the limitations of the tax law rewrite project. There is quite a strong argument for reconsidering the REIT legislation, not just in terms of how it is structured and drafted, but on its merits, too. In the proceedings on the Finance Bill last year I tabled amendments on the restriction on distributions, for example. At least 90 per cent. of property income must be distributed in the year in question, and currently that has to be done in cash. There was an argument about whether shares should be allowed too, given that there should be no tax consequence. I do not want to go outside the scope of the Bill, but perhaps the Minister will say something about whether the Government are considering the REIT regime, which has cross-party support, more widely. I know there have been difficult economic conditions for REITs, but there is an argument about whether the regime could go further and whether reforms will be necessary. I would be interested to hear his views.
	None of these debates would be complete without my briefly mentioning the order-making powers in clauses 1178, 1179 and 1180. The Minister customarily reassures us that those order-making powers, which enable primary legislation to be changed by regulation, will be used only in exceptional circumstances. The Bill restricts them somewhat. I would be interested to know to what extent those powers have been used for previous tax law rewrite Bills. One point that was raised in Committee-it would be helpful if the Minister could address it in this debate-was whether a negative resolution is sufficient or whether the affirmative procedure should apply.
	My final query-I apologise: I have two final points; I am sorry to disappoint the Government Whip-relates to whether some of the changes will involve more or less tax being paid. The Minister has said that no major changes are contained in the measures, and rightly so, because they do not involve the same level of parliamentary scrutiny. However, I should like to know whether there has been any assessment of the revenue implications of the changes in the Bill, and whether there is a rough and ready test to determine whether a change constitutes a major change-one too significant to be contained in a tax law rewrite Bill. I should also like to know how that assessment is made.
	Finally, some of the amendments made in Committee, particularly those to schedule 1, relate to Northern Ireland, and I wonder why those issues were missed earlier. When the Minister responds to this point, will he say something about the process when new issues arise in Committee? Where do they come from, who identifies them and are they part of the consultation process? We would like to get a better idea of the point at which weaknesses and omissions are addressed.
	Subject to those queries and questions, we welcome the Bill. The tax law rewrite project might not be perfect and might have too limited a remit, and there is more to be done to move towards simplification, but we should none the less acknowledge the enormous efforts that have been made by many people to improve the clarity of our tax law. That is an important objective. A start has been made, and we hope that a future Government will take on the project and do more to simplify our tax system, not just to clarify it.

John Pugh: I have not had the advantage, or indeed the pleasure, of being on the Committee, but I pay tribute to all the people who have laboured long and hard to bring the Bill before the House. This kind of legislation takes me back to my days as a council leader when members were annually shown for comment long papers on treasury management that were full of algebra, rather like pages 13 to 16 of the Bill. They were always passed without undue comment, and I note in passing that hon. Members have not exactly been fighting to get into this debate. If the truth were told, only a few pointy-headed people in the Treasury have complete mastery of the entire legislative feast that confronts us-and that includes the Minister, whose knowledge is encyclopaedic, so I assume that he understands it. There is a real case, as the hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Gauke) said, for expert advice in certain areas in which Members' background knowledge is deficient.
	The measures before us are, in part, highly technical, and largely uncontentious. The document is one for tax lawyers to work with as much as one for politicians to mull over. It is largely a tax rewrite and consolidation, rather than ground-breaking, innovative legislation that we need to get excited and argumentative about. It is, however, important, and it would be wrong and foolish of us to pretend that we could do justice to it all here in the time available, so I shall content myself with probing the Minister simply about the general thrust and shape of the legislation, bearing in mind that I wear another hat as a member of the Public Accounts Committee. The Committee recently did an excellent report on corporation tax, which is an odd tax because research shows that raising it does not necessarily raise the total take and that lowering it does not necessarily reduce the take. I think that we can all conclude from that observation that it is easily avoidable.
	One point that the Committee made in its report follows from what the hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire has just been saying. Conclusion two of the report states:
	"Businesses in the United Kingdom can legitimately reduce their Corporation Tax payments by claiming a range of reliefs and allowances. In some cases, the liability may reduce to zero, even though the businesses have made profits. The amount of tax foregone is likely to be substantial, but is not visible."
	I cannot tell whether the Bill has been crafted to do what the Committee wants the Government to do, which is ensure that a proper balance is achieved between allowances and overall liability, but I welcome the Minister's assurance that he is mindful of that point.
	The Committee also pointed out that the Department does not have
	"a robust measure of the Corporation Tax gap",
	by which we mean the difference between what large businesses pay and their theoretical liability. The report makes another point that is worth making now, given the long evolution of the legislation-that, in a change from recent times, about half the growth in global trade now comes from transactions between subsidiaries of multinational companies. However, recommendation eight states:
	"In the United Kingdom, groups of companies are not required to prepare consolidated Company Tax returns so the Department cannot assess the effective Corporation Tax rate across a group of companies."
	It then cites Australia and Canada as counter-examples of where things are done a little better. I do not suppose that the legislation was crafted to resolve all those issues, but can we have an assurance from the Minister that those anxieties require a legislative response, and will he ponder whether vehicles such as this Bill provide an appropriate opportunity for that?
	I have other concerns, including concerns about the development of bespoke tax avoidance schemes. The Minister is acutely aware of those concerns, and I know that he is working hard to close loopholes where and when they appear. Corporation tax matters are generally controversial, and no issue to do with taxation and this Government is simple. However, corporation tax is a valuable piece of the fiscal jigsaw, and we have to hope that this legislation has got things right.

Stephen Timms: I welcome the constructive comments from the hon. Members for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Gauke) and for Southport (Dr. Pugh), and the broad support that the Bill enjoys. The hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire suggested that the work should go further and the underlying tax rules should be simplified, but I remind him that the Government have already committed to simplifying the tax system, and we are working with a wide range of interested parties through the tax simplification reviews. The rewrite complements that commitment. I also draw his attention to the fact that the UK compares very favourably internationally, ranking first among G7 countries for ease of paying taxes. The World Bank "Paying Taxes 2010" survey is well worth a read. It makes the point that in the UK it typically takes 110 hours for a company to comply with paying taxes, whereas in Canada, France, the United States, Germany, Japan and Italy it takes a great deal longer. In Japan and Italy, for example, it takes more than 300 hours.
	Ease of compliance is what really makes a difference for businesses. For the reasons that we have discussed, more pages of legislation are appropriate for this issue, because although income tax and corporation tax legislation have been placed in separate locations, ease of use and clarity have been improved. I am happy to repeat the assurance that I gave on Second Reading and in Committee that the powers cannot be used to change the law in relation to periods before the Bill comes into force, so the powers are time-limited. As with previous rewrite Acts, I can confirm that the powers will not be used unless the tax law rewrite project's consultative and steering committees both agree that they should be so used.
	The hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire asked me about the rewriting of the real estate investment trust legislation. That reflects the fact that when the REIT legislation was introduced by the Finance Act 2006, there had not been time fully to work out how it should apply in certain cases, particularly in relation to joint venture companies and groups. Powers were therefore taken in that Act to enable those gaps to be filled using regulations, but the resulting regulations are considered to be equal in importance to the legislation in the Act. So I think that it is appropriate for them to be addressed as they have been.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about the powers to correct the legislation. The five rewritten Acts so far include more than 4,500 sections, but a total of only 97 errors have been corrected either by using the powers or by primary legislation. That is a great credit to the extensive consultation process and to those who gave their time and expertise to review the draft clauses. Most of the errors have been corrected in primary legislation, rather than by using the powers that we have discussed.
	I am grateful to the hon. Member for Southport for the points that he raised, and I can give him the assurance that he sought. We certainly bear the concerns that he raised in mind.
	I pay tribute again to the work of the team led by Robina Dyall. This Bill does not reform tax law, but it is important and has cross-party support. It will make things easier for everyone using tax legislation.
	I commend the Bill to the House.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed .

Taxation (International and Other Provisions) Bill

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 60(8)),
	That the Committee of the whole House be discharged from considering the Bill .-(Mr. Timms.)
	 Question agreed to.
	 Third Reading

Stephen Timms: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
	This Bill has two themes. First, it rewrites international provisions such as double taxation relief, transfer pricing, advance pricing agreements and tax arbitrage. Secondly, it helps users of tax legislation by relocating and, where appropriate, rewriting provisions that would otherwise have been left unhelpfully in the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 or in one of the Finance Acts.
	As we have just discussed, last year the tax law rewrite project completed the first part of rewriting corporation tax legislation when the Corporation Tax Act 2009 was enacted. A second Corporation Tax Bill, the sixth Bill produced by the project, has just received its Third Reading. As a result, the whole of the legislation relating to corporation tax will have been rewritten.
	This is the seventh and final Bill produced by Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs' tax law rewrite project. As with the Bills produced by the project in the past, this one continues the work to modernise our direct tax legislation so that it is clearer and easier to use.
	There is a further point that I want to make about the approach taken in this Bill. In rewriting the international provisions, this Bill, unlike previous rewrite Bills, does not separate them for income tax and corporation tax purposes. This different approach was agreed in consultation with users represented by the independent committees that oversee and support the work of the project.
	The project takes great care to ensure that the effect of the legislation remains the same, but it can encompass minor changes in the law when they improve the legislation. There are 15 such changes detailed in the explanatory notes to this Bill, although of course major changes will always be matters for a Finance Bill. All proposed changes in the law are considered by both the project's committees, and no minor changes are included in the Bill without their approval.
	Again, I should like to express particular thanks to the UK tax specialists, and others. My gratitude also goes to members of the project's consultative committee, chaired by Robina Dyall, who have ensured that the consultation has been detailed and thorough. The consultative committee includes representatives of small and large businesses, accountants, lawyers and other tax specialists. They have been very generous with their time and energy, for which we are very grateful.
	The strategy of the project is set by its steering committee, chaired by Lord Newton of Braintree, which includes members from both Houses of Parliament, the judiciary, business and consumer groups. I am particularly grateful to Lord Newton for his commitment and guidance, and to the members of his committee.
	As we debated previously, the Joint Committee of both Houses was chaired by the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie). It considered the Bill on 11 January and concluded that the Bill is a welcome clarification of the existing law, which as a result will be easier to use and more accessible to all users. The Committee was satisfied that the changes to the law were of very minor significance, and it accepted the amendments.
	This Bill is a worthwhile contribution to modernising our direct tax legislation so that it is clearer and easier to use. It maintains the project's excellent record in improving current legislation and has been welcomed by those who use it. Once again, I am grateful for the support that has been shown across the House throughout this work.
	I commend the Bill to the House.

David Gauke: It is almost tempting to deliver essentially the same speech that I delivered a couple of moments ago, but that would break the heart of the Government Whip and I would hate to do that. I am also very tempted to say, "I refer the House to the speech I gave some moments ago," but perhaps that would go to the other extreme.
	The international aspect of taxation is hugely important for an outward-looking economy such as the UK's. We witnessed great difficulties in 2008, when a number of companies moved their head offices out of the UK because of concerns over international taxation, in particular the Government's consultation with regard to controlled foreign companies that was published in 2007. We touched on that point on Second Reading.
	We welcome progress towards greater clarity in this respect, but we touched on the issue of controlled foreign companies in the Second Reading debate of 15 December. The Minister made it clear then that a consultation document was to be published in the new year, which would lead ultimately to legislation that I presume will be incorporated in this Bill when it becomes an Act. The consultation document was published in January, and the early indications that we have seen are encouraging. The Government are moving towards a more territorial system, and it is worth putting it on record that the Opposition believe that that is something that we need to pursue.
	Of course, the real test will come when we see the details in the consultation document and what will follow from it. It might be useful to mention that one of the points raised with us is that we need to know how the new user-friendly motive regime contained in the consultation document will operate in practice. The outcome must avoid causing difficulties with HMRC and placing an administrative burden on multinationals that are looking to locate in the UK. It is important that we have a competitive tax system that encourages business to locate here.
	Many of the remarks that I made earlier also apply equally to this Bill, and I should like to add my thanks to the various organisations and individuals that the Minister mentioned in his remarks, but I want to make a final point that I could also have made about the previous Bill. That is that witnesses at the Committee stage observed that the engagement by consultees seems to have fallen away slightly. As I noted in the earlier debate, the tax professions and businesses want legislation that goes further than merely clarifying and simplifying the language. They want something that starts to address the substance as well. I make that point again but, those comments apart, we support this Bill.

John Pugh: If the re-committed Corporation Tax Bill was opaque, this is doubly so, and I say that as a veteran of several double taxation statutory instruments in my time. I want briefly to commend the Government and the Minister for the seriousness of their intent in this matter. I note the updating of tax avoidance legislation. When 82 per cent. of central London commercial properties are owned by companies registered outside the UK-that is the figure from the chief executive of Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs-when companies exploiting the developed world's resources choose to base themselves largely in Bermuda, the Cayman Islands and the Isle of Man and pay little if any tax, and when our biggest retailer put its property portfolio in Liechtenstein, there is a problem, but it is one that the Government have endeavoured to square up to.
	Tax avoidance and double taxation are two incompatible evils, and any Government who recognise the reality of international finance need to strike the right balance between them. The Government, and the Financial Secretary in particular, have been resourceful and persistent in their efforts in this regard, and have accelerated the work in this very complex field, using what coercive and persuasive powers they have. I know that the Financial Secretary has had discussions with Crown dependencies' many tax havens and we see now a panorama of treaties around the world, and statutory instruments in this place are multiplying similarly. It is an important point. In a depressed world, it is important that all pay their fair share of tax, and an aspect of this Bill, at any rate, is part of the long, painful, not unrewarding task of making that happen, in which the Financial Secretary has played a conspicuous part.

Stephen Timms: Once again, I welcome the helpful remarks made by the hon. Members for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Gauke) and for Southport (Dr. Pugh). I was particularly interested in and grateful for what the hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire said in passing about the discussion document that we have published recently on the reform of controlled foreign company rules. I agree with him about the importance of this key issue for the UK's tax competitiveness and I welcome further discussion with him and others in the House and with the large number of companies and organisations that will be taking a close interest as work on this goes forward with a view to legislating-I hope, in the finance Act next year.
	I am also grateful to the hon. Member for Southport for his comments about the seriousness of the Government's intent in tackling tax evasion and avoidance. This is an area that he has taken a close and helpful interest in and I am grateful to him for what he said. Over the last year we have made more progress on tax information exchange than was made in the previous 10 years. The interest that he has shown is a helpful addition to making the progress that is needed.

David Gauke: May I take this opportunity to reiterate the remarks that I have made in some of those double taxation treaty statutory instrument committees? I know that there is potentially a backlog in getting through some of the treaties, such is the number that have been entered into in recent years, and the Opposition are willing to co-operate with the Government to ensure that we can get through as many of those as possible. We think that that adds to the attractiveness of the UK as an economic proposition, as well as addressing some of the concerns about tax avoidance.

Stephen Timms: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that.
	Finally, once again I express thanks to the very large number of people who have contributed to the tax law rewrite, and my particular thanks go to Lord Newton and Robina Dyall. This is the final debate of its kind and once again I commend the Bill to the House.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

EAST COAST MAIN LINE

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. -(Mr. Mudie.)

Alan Beith: I am pleased to have the opportunity to raise the issue of rail services on the east coast main line from stations in Northumberland. I am particularly pleased to be doing so in the early afternoon rather than at the usual time of 6 o'clock, because the last train to Berwick is at 6 o'clock and that is my only opportunity to get there before my surgery tomorrow morning. That illustrates one of the weaknesses in the present service, but I will say by way of preface that over the 36 years that I have been a Member of Parliament we have seen significant improvement in the service-not massive improvement, but significant improvement-particularly from Berwick and Alnmouth, achieved by stopping some more of the fast through trains there. That has paid dividends in terms of the number of passengers using the trains, which I will come back to.
	In a relatively short time we have had, or will soon have had, four operators running the east coast main line service, and that is not counting British Rail, which ran it previously. We had GNER, which was an adventurous and innovative company, determined to provide good passenger service, and its departure was lamented by many travellers on the line. Then we had National Express, and while at first people were fearful of what would happen with a new operator, it made some changes, but generally achieved other things to compensate for them, including greater punctuality, and people were sorry to see it go. Now we have East Coast, which the Government own, so the Minister runs the trains on our line, indirectly, and so far it seems to be doing a reasonably good job of it, so much so that many travellers on the line, myself included, would rather have some stability and see the East Coast, Government-owned company running it for some time rather than rushing into another operator quickly. To lose one operator seems careless, but to lose two seems downright incompetent, and were we to lose three, I do not know where we would be. It goes back to the problem of trying to exact too big a premium for the system in general from the operator of the profitable east coast main line. The closed auction process-the bidding war-led companies that really wanted to run the service to overbid, and when events came along, including recession, they were unable to continue, and it has been a messy story.
	But now, as I say, we have a Government-owned company running the East Coast service. However, that is not the only involvement that the Minister has because the Government determine what services will be run under the franchise system, and both the East Coast and the CrossCountry franchises are set by Government in considerable detail. This is one of the occasions when Ministers cannot say that these are all matters for somebody else; there is close ministerial and departmental involvement.
	My focus this afternoon is on the stations that lie in the county of Northumberland, particularly Berwick, Alnmouth and Morpeth, the first two being in my constituency, and Morpeth being one that serves a considerable area of my constituency. They all depend on east coast main line services and CrossCountry services. The local service to those stations is very limited, except in the case of Morpeth. The local service also serves Widdrington, Acklington and Chathill in my constituency, and we are working to improve it. We are also working to reinstate a station platform at Belford because of the absurdity that a train goes there twice a day and cannot collect any passengers. I will say something about that later. We are making real progress on that, and it may be the first station reopened in our part of the world since Dr. Beeching. If we achieve that, which I believe we can, we shall all be delighted.
	I would like to see improvements to that local service, but for the moment I want to concentrate on the express mainline services. There would be no adequate train service at all from Berwick and Alnmouth were it not for stops for East Coast and CrossCountry trains-stops for fast trains. Berwick depends on those entirely, and Alnmouth very largely. Over the years, we have achieved some more stops for these trains.
	We saw a particularly good improvement when Chris Green was running Virgin Trains. I was keen to demonstrate to him that there was considerable scope for getting more passengers at Alnmouth station, so I had him to tea here in the House of Commons and sent him up on a trip to look at Alnwick garden and the features of the town. He came back full of interest and excitement, and introduced several new stops on CrossCountry trains through Alnmouth on business grounds. At the same time, we made some improvements to the station. A real business dividend came out of that. Additional custom came on to the trains because the timetable was more viable. People would get a train in the morning because they knew there was a train in the afternoon that they could get back on. The timetable became viable-not as viable as I would like it to be, but much more so than it was. We need to maintain those improvements; they must be continued, not thrown away in careless timetable planning. That is a key point to which I shall return.
	The background to rail use in my constituency, first and foremost, is that we have the A1, which is a very dangerous road, only parts of which are dualled. During my time in Parliament I have helped to achieve some additional dualling, but we are not there yet, and much more improvement is needed. People who live locally recognise the road to be very dangerous, and that is one of the many reasons, apart from the environmental ones, why it is better to travel by rail if possible. I have raised that subject in Adjournment debates on other occasions.
	Berwick station is a railhead not only for north Northumberland but for the whole borders area. My hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (Mr. Moore) is keenly interested in what happens at Berwick, and he and I are going to see the Minister shortly to talk about that in more detail. The station serves a very large area of southern Scotland in which there are no railway stations at all. That is easily noticed on the station platform when we see so many people coming from Scotland. Whole school parties from Scottish schools catch trains from Berwick, as well as all the people from Berwick itself and from Northumberland. Because Berwick is 55 miles from Edinburgh and 65 miles from Newcastle, rail travel is very important. Things such as major hospitals, many people's work, shopping and major entertainment facilities are all a long way away, and therefore a train journey is the logical, and only really comfortable, way for many people to make such journeys. That makes the Berwick area quite different from many other parts of the country. A lot of people have settled there on the basis that they can work from home but travel occasionally to meetings in London or in other centres. That is an important developing pattern in our economy.
	Alnmouth station serves much of mid-Northumberland and has close links with RAF Boulmer, whose service families are big users of the rail service there. It has nearby Alnwick garden, which is attracting vast numbers of tourists. Its management has just been taken over by somebody whose past experience has been in Disneyland, and he expects to increase tourism in the Alnwick area on a very large scale. Alnmouth has a lot of regular commuters and a very active rail users' group, which has contributed enormously to the pressure to maintain and improve services there.
	Morpeth station, which serves the southern part of my constituency, has local services, many of which terminate there. However, it is also extremely advantageous for people who are travelling direct to London or on longer journeys to use Morpeth, because that saves them driving into Newcastle. That is an environmental benefit, as well as a benefit in terms of coping with the traffic congestion on the north side of the city. However, there are only a few direct trains from London to Morpeth in the current timetable, and they are popular and well used.
	Against that background, let me take a look at what is going on with rail timetables. The first thing that hit us was the Network Rail draft timetable for 2011. It is called, curiously, the "Eureka" timetable, which is more or less what I exclaimed when, after a very long period, I at last found it on the computer. It was extremely difficult to locate; how the public are supposed to take part in the consultation that has been launched, I do not know. At the moment there is no weekend timetable. I looked again yesterday, and we still have only a Monday to Friday timetable accessible on the internet. The draft timetable apparently contains mistakes. I understand from operators that certain trains that they expected to be in it were not included, so we hope that they will be reinstated.
	This ongoing process is very difficult to engage with. The only people who are doing so successfully are a very limited number who have a lot of specialised knowledge because of their past employment in the railway industry or because they take a close interest in railway matters. A few of those people have done sterling work in identifying changes that people might otherwise not have discovered until the day they went to get a train and found that it was no longer in the timetable.
	At the same time as that consultation, the Secretary of State has launched the franchise consultation for a new operator to take over the east coast main line. That consultation does not contain a timetable, but it does contain commitments and proposals for the pattern of the service, both short and long term. It is quite difficult to understand how the one relates to the other. I have said to the Secretary of State that I hope he will take all the representations on Network Rail's draft timetable as indicating what people want to see in the franchise as well. Because the franchise contains some new ideas, people will want also to make comments on those. The process is complex.
	What is wrong with the draft timetable? Let me start with Berwick. The first train to London from Berwick on the draft timetable, instead of getting in at 10.10 am, as under the present timetable, will not get to London until 10.40 am, half an hour later. That is a serious deterioration in one of the most important services that is provided. Given the pattern that I described earlier of people who work from home going to meetings in London, and given that a lot of people who are on national bodies of various kinds in our industries such as farming travel to London for meetings, that deterioration in service will lead to people taking the alternative of driving to Edinburgh or Newcastle airport and getting a plane from there. The later arrival in London is a serious failure. There is an easy to answer to that, which is that the 5.20 am train from Edinburgh in the new timetable should stop at Berwick, and the 6 o'clock train could stop at Alnmouth and Morpeth, to which I shall come in a moment.
	Another gap in the timetable is that there are no southbound trains between 8.10 and 10 o'clock in the morning, which is a huge loss. The CrossCountry train to Penzance, which stops at Berwick at 8.52 am, will not stop there under the new timetable. That is a valuable train to long-distance customers travelling to places such as Birmingham and other stations along the way, and it is much used by students and shoppers travelling to Newcastle. I have a feeling that CrossCountry did not intend to drop that train from the timetable.

Chris Mole: I hope to be able to reassure the right hon. Gentleman on the question of Penzance trains not stopping at Berwick. That was one of the omissions in Network Rail's early timetable work that have since been remedied, and Berwick will have a two-hourly CrossCountry service to the midlands and the south-west.

Alan Beith: That is very helpful, and I am pleased to hear it. It is just that kind of thing that I hope to get out of today's debate, to clarify where it is already recognised that the service needs to be maintained and where work must continue to ensure that it is.
	The next gap that I wish to mention is also a southbound service, and it is the main commuter train from Edinburgh. The most obvious time that people leave work is about 5.30 pm, and there is a 5.31 pm train. I use it myself sometimes and it is very well used, but under the new timetable it will not stop at Berwick, which will be a serious gap for regular commuters.
	The East Coast service running through to Glasgow from Berwick is to be almost entirely withdrawn. In its place, a new CrossCountry service to Glasgow will be provided. Far more of the CrossCountry trains go there, but those new trains will not stop at Berwick under the draft timetable. A lot of people travel between Berwick and Glasgow, as many organisations that have branches in Berwick are headquartered in Glasgow, so a lot of people make trips to Glasgow as part of their work, and the removal of that service is a loss.
	As I mentioned at the start of the debate, the last departure from King's Cross to Berwick is at 6 pm. The new timetable actually suggests that the 7 o'clock will run through beyond Newcastle every day, instead of just on Fridays as it does at the moment. I am so suspicious about the timetable exercise that I cannot believe that is for real-I suspect that "Fridays only" has been missed off the timetable rubric. I would love to be wrong, because I have argued for several years that the earlier removal of that daily 7 pm service to Edinburgh was a serious loss, and a potential loss of business because it was another reason for people to use the plane rather than the train.
	On the draft timetable, Alnmouth gains four trains, but loses 13-a net loss of nine. The service at that station is not hourly, but broadly two-hourly. From London, there is now no train between 11.30 and 3.30, and the 3.30 is the last train, except on Fridays, instead of 5.30.

Chris Mole: I assure the right hon. Gentleman that that, too, is an omission from Network Rail's early work and it has subsequently been remedied. Subject to consultation, the 7.13 train from London will call at Alnmouth and on Fridays, there will be an extra service at 19.30.

Alan Beith: I wish all my debates were as productive as this one has been so far. I want to consider that reassurance more carefully afterwards, but, again, it sounds hopeful.
	Travelling to London, there is an enormous gap in the first draft of the Alnmouth service between 9 am and 3 pm. There are no direct trains from London to Morpeth at all in the draft timetable, whereas two evening trains currently stop there. I hope that that is covered by the reassurance that the Minister has just given. For the reasons I gave earlier, the direct service from Morpeth, although more limited, is extremely valuable and should be retained.
	One of the timetable's oddities is that it is almost impossible to travel between the stations in Northumberland. That is partly a consequence of something that I consider helpful-the sharing of trains along the line. Some trains stop at Alnmouth and not Berwick, whereas others stop at Berwick and not Alnmouth. I recognise that some of that has to happen, but the timetable planners should pay some attention to improving the possibilities for people to travel between, for example, Berwick and Morpeth, or Alnmouth and Dunbar. That is currently not a feature of planning. Indeed, one of our problems is that all the timetable planning is dedicated to services between major centres, such as London, York, Newcastle, Edinburgh and Glasgow, and the stations in between seem to be an afterthought, which is not governed by an examination of what sort of service each station needs and how it can be provided.
	I should like another gap in the service to be filled in future. According to the new timetable, the last train from Edinburgh leaves at 8.30 pm. That is too early; there is almost nothing one can do in Edinburgh in an evening that will be over by 8.30 pm. I understand that CrossCountry is to run a late train from Edinburgh to Dunbar at around or after 11 pm. Perhaps that service could be extended to Newcastle or at least Berwick, instead of terminating at Dunbar. It is rather complicated to terminate a train there because of the track layout. Some years ago, a service ran through to Newcastle in the summer months. GNER ran it late at night and it was very popular among Edinburgh festival-goers and others visiting Edinburgh in the evening.
	The franchise document refers to increased frequency of services between Newcastle and Edinburgh, with no mention of Berwick, Alnmouth or Morpeth. Anyone from the latter places reading the franchise document immediately thinks, "There's nothing in this for us." There is no attempt to specify that there should be an adequate sharing of those trains among some of the stations in Northumberland.
	There is scope for a stopping service from Newcastle to Edinburgh. The Scottish Government have been interested in that for some time. They have been considering options such as opening one or two new stations on the Scottish side of the border at, for example, Reston, and having a service that would come through from Scotland and stop at Morpeth, Alnmouth, Berwick and Dunbar, and perhaps some of the intermediate stations such as Acklington or Chathill. I hope that the door is not closed to that possibility, although whether it can be profitable or would require subsidy is not clear. If there is a possibility of a decision in Scotland to offer some element of subsidy to a service, which seems necessary on the Scottish side, I would like to grab hold of the possibility for the English side, too. As I said, as far as train travel is concerned, people do not stop at the border-people who live in Scotland use Berwick station extensively and travel across the border is a great feature of life in our area.
	My primary aim in this debate is to get the Minister to make it his business to ensure that services to Berwick, Alnmouth and Morpeth are not reduced, and that they get a net improvement, in both the 2011 timetable and the franchise negotiations and specifications. The Secretary of State has taken a genuine personal interest in the future of the east coast main line, and I want him and the Minister to ensure that that includes the stations in Northumberland.
	I should like to talk about two wider issues that are part of the franchise document. First, on ticket prices, even regulated fares and many cheaper fares are uncompetitive with car and plane for many customers. I quite often get letters from customers saying, "I looked into the possibility of making my business trip by train, but then I found I could drive 50, 60 or 70 miles to an airport, catch a plane and pay significantly less than I would be paying even for a reduced-price first-class fare on the train." Many such offers are made, but the price has crept up in recent years. Unless we ensure that ticket prices are more competitive than air travel, we will continue to encourage people to make long car journeys, which they must do in my part of the world to get to an airport, which is inconsistent with general Government policy.
	Secondly, there have been significant station improvements over recent years, including to Berwick station-I had the odd experience of opening the lifts for the footbridge over the station a few years ago. Celebrating the opening of a lift with a glass of champagne is a variant on the many duties of a Member of Parliament, but the facility was much needed by disabled people and people with heavy luggage. The absence of lifts at Alnmouth has been a serious problem. People with disabilities have been told that if they arrive from London in the evening, when there are no staff at the station, they will not be able to leave the platform-they cannot use the bridge and there is nobody to supervise crossing the track. That serious problem is being dealt with, but it is long overdue.
	Such improvements are very important, as is parking, at both Alnmouth and Berwick. The county council is pushing ahead with plans for increased parking at the former, but the plans for Berwick have proved difficult. My original hope was that Network Rail would give up its land, because it could be stationed somewhere else-it does not have to be based right by those stations. That would open up more parking spaces.
	There is a possibility of getting more parking spaces, the need for which is obvious from the amount of parking in roads round about. I happen to live in one such road. I do not mind people from Scotland parking their cars outside my house to go to the station-I am glad they are using the train-but that has created some problems, and traffic management changes have had to be made to accommodate them. Continued station improvements are very important to the franchise and the future of the service.
	The oddity with Belford station is that the only local service that goes into north Northumberland beyond Morpeth goes twice a day to Acklington, Woodrington, and Chathill, and then turns round at Belford, but there is no platform there-there used to be years ago, but not now. Therefore, a train goes to Belford twice a day, but people cannot get on it.
	A great deal of effort by local people, with genuine co-operation from rail operators such as Northern Rail and from Network Rail and the county council, is enabling things to be moved forward, and I hope the Department for Transport will also co-operate. The executive of the county council is currently recommending that the council spend money on installing the platform. We have had many battles over how long a platform must be and the greatness of the risk of someone getting out of the wrong door and such things. At times those have seemed absurd, and they have perhaps led to higher costs than necessary. However, I believe we are in sight of achieving that objective, and I hope the Minister continues to offer his encouragement.
	There is a lot of scope for transfer to rail travel in Northumberland and a great need for rail travel because of the distances involved. Not many people have to travel 50 or 60 miles to get to a main hospital, to go to a theatre that is not a small local arts centre or to visit all the main chain shops, but that is the situation in north Northumberland. Rail travel is very important, so it is also important that we retain a good service. The timetable drafts left people very worried about losing the gains that we had made in recent years, when we should instead be improving the service, and I hope that the Minister's initial indications that some of those worries are being addressed will be backed up by more restoration of trains to the timetable and some additional stops.

Chris Mole: I congratulate the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith) on securing this debate and providing an opportunity for the House to discuss rail services on the east coast main line in Northumberland. I know that this is a subject of interest to many hon. Members, and I will discuss points of detail further with the right hon. Gentleman if I do not successfully address them in my response this afternoon.
	The east coast main line is an exceptionally valuable asset in the national transport system. It provides the fastest surface transport between London and the Yorkshire and Humber region, north-east England and Edinburgh. It also provides key links between Scotland, the north-east and routes to the midlands and north-west. It is also of vital importance for freight, particularly as part of the link from major ports to distribution centres in large conurbations, and to coal-fired power stations. Further, it supports the long-distance passenger services provided by the public sector train operator, East Coast Main Line Company Ltd, which pays a substantial premium to Government, thereby reducing the level of taxpayer support needed for the railway as a whole.
	The challenges faced by the railway industry on the east coast route are principally associated with the volume of traffic, and the reliability of the services. Growth over the next 10 years, despite the present financial difficulties, is expected to be substantial in almost all the markets served by the route. Passenger demand for rail has been growing strongly over recent years. That is due to a combination of several factors, particularly economic growth and increasing road traffic congestion. On many routes, including the east coast, the growth has been stimulated by additional services and ticketing initiatives that have been developed by the train operators to encourage off-peak travel.
	The most significant use of long-distance passenger trains is for business and leisure travel to and from London. The high number of passengers travelling between London and cities such as Leeds, Newcastle and Edinburgh is due to the size and significance of those major conurbations, and transport links among them are of national economic importance.
	In Northumberland, stations at Berwick-upon-Tweed, Alnmouth and Morpeth are used by long-distance passenger services. As well as serving their immediate towns and surrounding areas, those stations act as railheads for large parts of Northumberland and the Scottish borders that do not have the benefit of rail connections. In addition, stations at Chathill, Acklington, Widdrington, Pegswood, and Cramlington are used by local services, providing important journey opportunities to Newcastle.
	Long-distance passenger services at Berwick-upon-Tweed, Alnmouth and Morpeth are provided by East Coast and CrossCountry train operators. East Coast provides direct trains from those stations to London King's Cross and to principal intermediate stations on the east coast main line. CrossCountry provides direct trains to east coast main line stations as far south as York, then stations towards the midlands and south-west including Leeds, Sheffield, Birmingham, Bristol, Plymouth and Penzance. East Coast and CrossCountry also provide direct trains from Morpeth, Alnmouth and Berwick-upon-Tweed to Dunbar and Edinburgh, some of which are extended to serve other stations in Scotland, including Glasgow, Dundee, Aberdeen and Inverness.
	The current east coast main line timetable does not have a regular repeating pattern and, consequently, train times at stations in Northumberland are at irregular intervals. Broadly speaking, Berwick-upon-Tweed has an East Coast London train most hours and a CrossCountry train approximately every two hours. Alnmouth has six London trains per day and a CrossCountry train approximately every two hours, and Morpeth has three East Coast and three CrossCountry trains per day. Those levels of service reflect relative numbers of passengers travelling from each of those stations.
	In 2008 Network Rail published its route utilisation strategy-colloquially referred to as RUS-for the east coast main line. The RUS, which was compiled with the assistance of industry parties and other key stakeholders, considered the current and future passenger and freight markets, and assessed the future growth in each. It then sought to show how growth could be accommodated effectively and efficiently, and proposed measures ranging from the lengthening of trains to the provision of additional infrastructure. It recommended that additional long-distance high-speed passenger services should run to and from King's Cross both in peak times, with up to eight trains an hour, and in off-peak times, with six trains per hour. That strategy is expected to cater adequately for forecast growth in passenger demand at least until the end of the RUS study period in 2016.
	In the longer term, increasing train capacity through the use of new high-capacity, super-express trains and increasing network capacity by rolling out 21st-century signalling technology, in the form of the European rail traffic management system, might create the potential to double capacity. However, it will be several years before those enhancements can be delivered, so the Government believe it necessary to develop and implement an improved timetable in the shorter term, essentially using the current infrastructure.
	We recognise that any increase in service frequency in advance of infrastructure enhancements is likely to be limited to off-peak periods, when the performance impact of such an increase can be largely offset by improvements to the structures of the timetable, including through adopting a regular repeating service pattern. Additional services to accommodate growth are likely to be necessary first at the southern end of the east coast main line, where traffic volumes are greatest. North of Newcastle, trains are generally less crowded and additional services less likely to be justified in the short term.
	The Government have adopted a three-stage approach to the development of east coast main line train services. First, the timetable will be changed to provide some additional trains south of York and to adopt a more regular pattern of services, with improved average journey times. The new timetable will be introduced by East Coast in May 2011. Secondly, through their high-level output specification for the rail industry, the Government have specified a package of infrastructure enhancements to increase the effective capacity of the route. Those enhancements have been included in Network Rail's funding from 2009-2014, and will enable additional peak and off-peak passenger services to run after 2014, while preserving capacity to accommodate important freight flows. Thirdly, the Government are leading the procurement of a new generation of super-express trains for introduction to the east coast main line from about 2014. Those trains will have greater carrying capacity and better performance than current trains, allowing services to be speeded up and additional services to run.
	Although the most critical capacity issues are likely to be south of York, the stations in Northumberland will benefit from each stage of the Government's strategy to improve east coast main line services. The new May 2011 timetable will adopt a more regular pattern of station calls in Northumberland, and average journey times will be reduced. Berwick-upon-Tweed will be served each hour by a fast train between Edinburgh and London, calling at Newcastle, Darlington and York. The journey time between Berwick-upon-Tweed and London King's Cross will be about three hours and 38 minutes northbound, which is six minutes faster than today, and three hours and 40 minutes southbound, which is 23 minutes faster than today. That is because the southbound trains from Berwick-upon-Tweed in today's timetable call at many intermediate stations, whereas in future they will be fast trains normally calling only at Newcastle, Darlington and York. Other stations will be accessible by convenient connections, at either York or Newcastle.
	Berwick-upon-Tweed will continue to be served by a CrossCountry train on alternate hours, giving through-journey opportunities to Leeds, Sheffield, the midlands and the south-west. Alnmouth will gain a significantly improved service, with a train each hour provided alternately by East Coast or CrossCountry, and running alternately to London or to the midlands and south-west. The total number of long-distance trains per day will increase by 30 per cent., from 27 to 35. At Morpeth the service will increase from six to seven long-distance trains per day in each direction, providing a greater choice of journey times while retaining the current commuting and business travel opportunities.
	I know that the right hon. Gentleman is concerned about the timing of the first train of the day between Berwick-upon-Tweed and London. At present the first train from Edinburgh to London calls at Berwick-upon-Tweed at 06.29 and arrives at London King's Cross at 10.11. The Government believe that there are significant benefits to be gained from providing a very fast business service between Edinburgh and London, to encourage the use of rail rather than domestic air travel. My noble Friend the Secretary of State for Transport has therefore challenged the industry to provide a morning train with a journey time from Edinburgh to London of less than four hours and an arrival time before 10 o'clock. To achieve that demanding target, the first train from Edinburgh will be given special priority in the timetable, and will call only at Newcastle. Consequently, the earliest service from Berwick-upon-Tweed will be provided by the following train, which is planned to arrive in London at 10.41.
	I recognise that that change is undesirable from the point of view of travellers from Berwick-upon-Tweed, and options to provide an earlier arrival time are being examined. However, it is an unfortunate fact of railway timetabling that the large overall benefits arising from a major timetable change are sometimes deliverable only by making compromises for some of the smaller traffic flows.

Alan Beith: I hope that the alternative options for an earlier arrival in London will be pursued vigorously, because many of the people who now get that train will otherwise transfer to air travel. That would be inconsistent with what the Secretary of State is trying to achieve by establishing the early departure from Edinburgh. Air travel would be more attractive, and provide a shorter journey, for the people travelling from Berwick.

Chris Mole: I take the right hon. Gentleman's point, but I ask him to accept that in this instance a later arrival time might be unavoidable. However, we will explore all possibilities.
	The right hon. Gentleman has expressed concern about the widely misreported plan to withdraw through services between the east coast main line and Glasgow. I would like to set the record straight on this matter. At present, East Coast services between London and Edinburgh are extended to and from Glasgow Central at two-hourly intervals throughout the day. In the May 2011 timetable it is proposed that most of those trains should run only between London and Edinburgh. Instead, CrossCountry services between Edinburgh, Yorkshire, the midlands and south-west England would be extended to start and finish at Glasgow Central at two-hourly intervals. There would be no withdrawal of services-simply a change of train operator-and there would continue to be opportunities to make through journeys between stations in Northumberland and Glasgow.
	The East Coast train operator has recently commenced consultation with passengers and other stakeholders on the details of the May 2011 timetable proposal, and I am sure that many Members of the House will wish to contribute their views. I take the right hon. Gentleman's point that some of the consultation documents were not easy to find. The rail regulator's documents were perhaps more technical in nature, and therefore not intended for widespread access. However, the Department for Transport's franchise consultation is available on our website and as a hard copy, and the Department will be holding stakeholder events on the proposed franchise arrangements, including one in Newcastle. With regard to the information provided by the East Coast train operator on its ambitions for the timetable, I will draw the right hon. Gentleman's comments to the attention of the company.

Alan Beith: The Minister has said some very encouraging things this afternoon, but they are so far from the draft timetable originally produced that I hope that he can secure some means by which a realistic timetable, incorporating some of what he has described, can be made available so that it can be examined by the public. If he has a good story to tell, it would be better to tell it, rather than the weak story that the present draft timetable represents.

Chris Mole: I honestly take the right hon. Gentleman's point, but I fear that for some individuals looking at the information, a little knowledge was a dangerous thing, as they were reading more into it than was perhaps justified. Because of the extent of the proposed timetable changes, the Office of Rail Regulation will need to approve amendments to the track access agreements that enable the train operators to gain access to the railway network. This will require the ORR to be satisfied that the trains and train operators granted access to run on the route are those that will make the best use of it and make the greatest contribution to the economic health of the regions it serves, as well as to the financial health of the railway system. I understand that the ORR will publish its decisions within the next few days.
	I should explain that, in addition to the proposed changes to East Coast and other franchised passenger services in May 2011, the ORR received a number of other applications for additional access rights on the east coast main line from open access passenger and freight train operators. The total demand for train paths exceeded the available network capacity, so it has been necessary for the ORR to determine which applications for track access it will approve and which should be rejected.
	In reaching its decisions on the best use of capacity, the ORR has a statutory duty to balance a large range of factors, including promoting use of the network for the carriage of passengers and goods, protecting performance levels, encouraging competition and having regard to the available funding for the railway system. There are some difficult trade-offs here. For example, while new open access passenger services generally increase the overall number of passengers travelling, and compete with established operators, they often require non-standard train paths, which could be a performance risk, and much of their revenue is abstracted from franchised operators, thereby increasing the cost of the railways to the taxpayer.
	In addition to providing its own economic and financial analysis, the ORR asked Network Rail to report on the extent to which the competing applications for capacity might be accommodated. In accordance with its usual policy of transparency, the ORR published on its website Network Rail's reports on associated timetabling work, which is what we are talking about.
	Unfortunately, this preliminary timetabling work, which was carried out purely to inform the ORR's decision-making process, has been misinterpreted by some as a final timetable. That is particularly unfortunate in the case of East Coast and CrossCountry services at Berwick-upon-Tweed, Alnmouth and Morpeth, which had not been fully specified when Network Rail's preliminary timetabling was carried out, as they were not directly relevant to the key capacity allocation decisions for the route south of York. Specification of these services is now complete and, subject to the ORR's final decisions and any adjustments arising from consultation, the May 2011 timetable in Northumberland will be as I described it a few moments ago.
	Although the May 2011 timetable will be implemented by the public sector train operator, East Coast, it is the Government's policy that passenger train services should be provided by the private sector through franchising agreements with the Department for Transport. Thus, on 21 January my noble Friend the Secretary of State for Transport announced the start of consultation on the specification for a new inter-city East Coast franchise to commence in autumn 2011. The consultation document is available on the Department's website; I encourage hon. Members to read it and to let us have their views on the proposed specification.
	The right hon. Gentleman asked specifically about Friday services. I can assure him that the 19.00 service from London will run every day and that the 19.30 from London to Newcastle will be extended to Edinburgh on Fridays only, calling at Morpeth, Alnmouth and Berwick-upon-Tweed.
	At its inception, the new franchise will operate the May 2011 timetable and will continue to provide the services at Berwick-upon-Tweed, Alnmouth and Morpeth, as I described earlier. We intend to invite bidders to make proposals to utilise the additional infrastructure capacity, to be provided by Network Rail by 2014, and, subject to the usual value for money and affordability assessments, we would hope to be able to procure further train service improvements in that year.
	Bidders for the new franchise will be expected to demonstrate how they will achieve improvements in service levels and facilities at stations where the franchisee is the station facility owner, and that includes Berwick-upon-Tweed. They will be required to address safety and security, accessibility and improvements to car parking and cycle storage, along with other concerns that the right hon. Gentleman raised. The Department will expect bidders' plans to be informed by the recent review entitled "Better Railway Stations" carried out by station champions Chris Green and Sir Peter Hall, whom the right hon. Gentleman mentioned.
	Reopening of the former station at Belford was mentioned. I know that this has been a local aspiration for some time. Although potential passenger numbers are probably quite modest, a limited service could be provided with minimal additional operating costs, because local trains between Newcastle and Chathill must run north to Belford before changing tracks to return south. I understand that Northumberland county council is considering as early as next week the case for reinstating a platform at Belford, and the Government would welcome that initiative.
	The right hon. Gentleman spoke briefly about ticket prices. Let me remind him of the need to strike a balance between the interests of the fare payer and those of the taxpayer. I am sure he will appreciate that the east coast train operator will want to promote increased use of its services while protecting its revenue.
	The new inter-city east coast franchisee will also be able to undertake the introduction of the new super-express trains, which are expected to be available from 2014 onwards. The Department is leading the procurement of those trains, which will be designed, financed, built and maintained through a private finance initiative. We expect the new trains to give the franchisee an opportunity to make further improvements to the east coast main line timetable, including further journey time reductions and frequency increases.
	I cannot make any precise commitments about the details of the super-express timetable at this stage. An initial outline will be prepared over the next few months as part of the specification for the new franchise, and more detailed development will be undertaken at the appropriate time by the new franchisee in conjunction with Network Rail and other stakeholders.
	I thank the House for the opportunity to explain the Government's plans for improved train services on the east coast main line, with particular reference to services at the stations in Northumberland. They illustrate the Government's ongoing commitment to improving Britain's railways.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 House adjourned.